UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


«  2  5  8 


THE 


WORKS 


OF 


VOLUME    III. 


FOURTEENTH    EDITION 


BOSTON: 
LITTLE,    BROWN    AND    COMPANY, 

1866. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1851.  by 

GEORGE  W.  GORDON  AND  JAMES  W.  PAIGE, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts 


Cambrfogt  Jhrss. 
DACI*    AffD    MKTC 


£ 


V'3 

DEDICATION 

OF    THE    THIRD    VOLUME. 


TO 

CAROLINE     LE    ROY    WEBSTER. 

MY    DEARLY    BELOVED    WlFE  : 

I  CANNOT  allow  these  volumes  to  go  to  the  press,  without  containing 
a  tribute  of  my  affections,  and  some  acknowledgment  of  the  deep  in- 
terest that  you  have  felt  in  the  productions  which  they  contain.  You 
have  witnessed  the  origin  of  most  of  them,  not  with  less  concern,  cer- 
tainly, than  has  been  felt  by  their  author ;  and  the  degree  of  favor  with 
which  they  may  now  be  received  by  the  public  will  be  as  earnestly 
regarded,  I  am  sure,  by  you  as  by  myself. 

The  opportunity  seems,  also,  a  fit  one  for  expressing  the  high  and 
warm  regard  which  I  ever  entertained  for  your  honored  father,  now 
deceased,  and  the  respect  and  esteem  which  I  cherish  towards  the 
members  of  that  amiable  and  excellent  family  to  which  you  belong. 

DANIEL   WEBSTER. 


CONTENTS 


C  F    THE     THIRD     VOLUME, 


SPEECHES   IN   THE   CONVENTION   TO   AMEND    THE    CONSTITU- 
TION OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

PACK 

QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  OFFICE 3 

Remarks  on  the  Report  of  a  Select  Committee  relative  to  Oaths  and  Sub- 
scriptions, made  in  the  Convention  on  the  4th  of  December,  1820. 

BASIS  OF. THE  SENATE 8 

Speech  in  the  Convention  on  a  Resolution  proposing  to  divide  the  Common- 
wealth into  Districts  according  to  Population,  for  the  Choice  of  Senators, 
delivered  on  the  15th  of  December,  1820. 

INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  JUDICIARY     .         .         •  '      . 

Remarks  made  on  the  30th  of  December,  1820,  upon  a  Resolution  to  make 
the  Officers  of  the  Judiciary  removable  by  the  Governor  and  Council  upon 
the  Address  of  Two  Thirds,  instead  of  a  Majority,  of  each  Branch  of  the 
Legislature. 


SPEECHES  IN  CONGRESS. 

BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES          ......         35 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  OB 
the  2d  of  January,  1815. 

THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY 48 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  26th  of  April,  1816,  on  the  Collection  of  the  Revenue  in  the  Legal 
Currency  of  the  Country. 

a* 


vj  CONTENTS. 

THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE 60 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  19th  of  January,  1824. 

THE  TARIFF '  .94 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Unite<  States,  on 
the  1st  and  2d  of  April,  1824. 

THE  JUDICIARY •        .       150 

Remarks  made  on  the  4th  of  January,  1826,  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  Bill  to  amend  the  Judiciary  System. 

THE  PANAMA  MISSION     .         .         .     I. ^.        ....       178 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
on  the  14th  of  April,  1826. 

REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS        .         .         .         .         .         .         .218 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  25th  of  April, 
1828,  on  the  Bill  for  the  Relief  of  the  Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revo- 
lution. 

SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF 228 

Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  9th  of  May,  1828,  on  the 
Tariff  Bill. 

FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION     .        .        .        .         .      248 
Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  20th  of  January,  1830. 

SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION  .  270 


Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  26th  and  27th  of 
January,  1830. 

LAST  REMARKS  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION  .         .         .  .       343 

Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  27th  of  January,  1830. 

THE  NOMINATION  OF  MR.  VAN  BUREN  AS  MINISTER  TO  ENGLAND      356 

Remarks  made  in  Secret  Session  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
24  fh  of  January,  1832,  on  the  Nomination  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  as  Minister 
to  Great  Britain. 

T«E  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION   .    .    «    .   369 

A  Report  made  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  5th  of  April,  1832, 
on  .the  Bill  from  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  Apportionment  of 
fiepresentation. 


CONTENTS. 

BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES       .... 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate,  on  the  25th  of  May,  1832,  on  the  Bill  for 
renewing  the  Charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States. 

FURTHER  REMARKS  ON  THE  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES        .      407 
Made  in  the  Senate,  on  the  28th  of  May,  1832. 

THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  BANK  BILL        416 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  llth  of  July, 
1832,  on  the  President's  Veto  of  the  Bank  Bill. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT  BETWEEN  SOVEREIGN  STATES     448 

A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  16th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1833,  in  Keply  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  Speech  on  the  Bill  "further  to 
provide  for  the  Collection  of  the  Duties  on  Imports." 

THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS 506 

Remarks,  on  different  Occasions,  on  the  Removal  of  the  Deposits,  and  on  the 
Subject  of  a  National  Bank,  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  Course  of  the  Session  of  1833-34. 


SPEECHES 


IN  THE 


CONVENTION  TO  AMEND  THE  CONSTITUTION 


OF  THE 


STATE   OF   MASSACHUSETTS. 


VOL.    III. 


QUALIFICATIONS   FOR  OFFICE.' 


IN  consequence  of  the  separation  of  what  is  now  the  State  of  Maine 
from  Massachusetts,  in  the  year  1820,  it  became  necessary  to  make 
some  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  opportuni- 
ty was  thought  a  favorable  one  for  a  general  revision  of  that  instrument, 
which  had  undergone  no  amendment  since  its  adoption  in  1780.  Dele- 
gates were  accordingly  chosen  by  the  people  to  meet  in  convention  for 
this  purpose,  the  several  towns  and  districts  in  the  Commonwealth  (there 
were  then  no  cities)  being  allowed  as  many  delegates  as  they  were 
respectively  entitled  to  send  members  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  State.  Mr.  Webster  was  among  the  delegates  chosen  by  the 
town  of  Boston,  and  took  an  active  and  distinguished  part  in  the  busi- 
ness of  the  convention,  both  in  committee-room  and  in  debate. 

As  soon  as  the  body  was  organized  by  the  choice  of  its  officers,  the 
chief  provisions  of  the  existing  constitution  were  referred  to  select  com- 
mittees, instructed  to  consider  and  report  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what 
amendments  were  desirable  to  be  made  in  them.  The  subject  of  the 
official  oaths  and  subscriptions  required  by  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  sec- 
ond part  of  the  constitution  was  referred  to  a  committee  for  this  purpose, 
of  which  Mr.  Webster  was  chairman.  A  report  was  made  by  this  com- 
mittee, recommending  that,  in  lieu  of  all  oaths  and  subscriptions  then  re- 
quired, a  simple  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Commonwealth,  together  with 
the  oath  of  office,  should  be  taken  by  all  persons  chosen  or  appointed  to 
office.  The  most  important  feature  of  these  proposed  changes  was.  that 
a  profession  of  belief  in  the  Christian  religion  was  no  longer  required  as 
a  qualification  for  office. 

The  resolutions  reported  by  this  committee  became  the  subject  of  a 
discussion,  in  the  course  of  which,  on  the  4th  of  December,  1820,  Mr. 
Webster  made  the  following  remarks  :  — 

*  Remarks,  made  on  the  4th  of  December,  1820,  in  the  Convention  of  Delegates 
chosen  to  revise  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  upon  the  Resolution  relating 
*o  Oaths  of  Office. 


4  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

IT  is  obvious  that  the  principal  alteration  proposed  by  the  first 
resolution  is  the  omission  of  the  declaration  of  belief  in  the 
Christian  religion  as  a  qualification  for  office,  in  the  cases  of 
the  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  councillors,  and  members  of 
the  legislature.  I  shall  content  myself  on  this  occasion  with 
stating,  shortly  and  generally,  the  sentiments  of  the  select  com- 
mittee, as  I  understand  them,  on  the  subject  of  this  resolution. 

Two  questions  naturally  present  themselves.  In  the  first 
place,  Have  the  people  a  right,  if  in  their  judgment  the  security 
of  their  government  and  its  due  administration  demand  it,  to 
require  a  declaration  of  belief  in  the  Christian  religion  as  a  qual- 
ification or  condition  of  office?  On  this  question,  a  majority  of 
the  committee  held  a  decided  opinion.  They  thought  the  peo- 
ple had  such  a  right.  By  the  fundamental  principle  of  popular 
and  elective  governments,  all  office  is  in  the  free  gift  of  the  peo- 
ple. They  may  grant  or  they  may  withhold  it  at  pleasure ; 
and  if  it  be  for  them,'  and  them  only,  to  decide  whether  they  will 
grant  office,  it  is  for  them  to  decide,  also,  on  what  terms  and  what 
conditions  they  will  grant  it.  Nothing  is  more  unfounded  than 
the  notion  that  any  man  has  a  right  to  an  office.  This  must 
depend  on  the  choice  of  others,  and  consequently  upon  the  opin- 
ions of  others,  in  relation  to  his  fitness  and  qualification  for 
office.  No  man  can  be  said  to  have  a  right  to  that  which  others 
may  withhold  from  him  at  pleasure.  There  are  certain  rights, 
no  doubt,  which  the  whole  people,  or  the  government  as  repre- 
senting the  whole  people,  owe  to  each  individual  in  return  for 
that  obedience  and  personal  service,  and  those  proportionate 
contributions  to  the  public  burdens,  which  each  individual  owes 
to  the  government.  These  rights  are  stated  with  sufficient  ac- 
curacy, in  the  tenth  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  in  this  consti- 
tution. "  Each  individual  in  society  has  a  right  to  be  protected 
by  it  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  life,  liberty,  and  property,  according 
to  the  standing  laws."  Here  is  no  right  of  office  enumerated;  no 
right  of  governing  others,  or  of  bearing  rule  in  the  State.  All 
bestowment  of  office  remaining  in  the  discretion  of  the  people, 
Ihcy  have  of  course  a  right  to  regulate  it  by  any  rules  which 
they  may  deem  expedient.  Hence  the  people,  by  then-  consti- 
tution, prescribe  certain  qualifications  for  office,  respecting  age, 
property,  residence,  and  taxation.  But  if  office,  merely  as  such, 
were  a  right  which  each  individual  under  the  social  compact 


QUALIFICATIONS   FOR  OFFICE.  5 

was  entitled  to  claim,  all  these  qualifications  would  be  excluded. 
Acknowledged  rights  are  not  subject,  and  ought  not  to  be  sub- 
ject, to  any  such  limitation.  The  right  of  being  protected  in 
life,  liberty,  and  estate  is  due  to  all,  and  cannot  be  justly  denied 
'to  any,  whatever  be  their  age,  property,  or  residence  in  the  State. 
These  qualifications,  then,  can  only  be  made  requisite  as  condi- 
tions for  office,  on  the  ground  that  office  is  not  what  any  man 
can  demand  as  matter  of  right,  but  rests  in  the  confidence  and 
good-will  of  those  who  are  to  bestow  it.  In  short,  it  seems  to 
me  too  plain  to  be  questioned,  that  the  right  of  office  is  a  mat- 
ter of  discretion,  and  option,  and  can  never  be  claimed  by  any 
man  on  the  ground  of  obligation.  It  would  seem  to  follow, 
then,  that  those  who  confer  office  may  annex  any  such  condi- 
tions to  it  as  they  think  proper.  If  they  prefer  one  man  to 
another,  they  may  act  on  that  preference.  If  they  regard  certain 
personal  qualifications,  they  may  act  accordingly,  and  ground 
of  complaint  is  given  to  nobody.  Between  two  candidates,  oth- 
erwise equally  qualified,  the  people  at  an  election  may  decide  in 
favor  of  one  because  he  is  a  Christian,  and  against  the  other 
because  he  is  not.  They  may  repeat  this  preference  at  the  next 
election,  on  the  same  ground,  and  may  continue  it  from  year  to 
year. 

Now,  if  the  people  may,  without  injustice,  act  upon  this  pref- 
erence, and  from  a  sole  regard  to  this  qualification,  and  refuse 
in  any  instance  to  depart  from  it,  they  have  an  equally  clear 
right  to  prescribe  this  qualification  beforehand,  as  a  rule  for  their 
future  government.  If  they  may  do  it,  they  may  agree  to  do  it 
If  they  deem  it  necessary,  they  may  so  say,  beforehand.  If  the 
public  will  may  require  this  qualification  at  every  election  as  it 
occurs,  the  public  will  may  declare  itself  beforehand,  and  make 
such  qualification  a  standing  requisite.  That  cannot  be  an  un- 
just rule,  the  compliance  with  which,  in  every  case,  would  be 
right.  This  qualification  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  man's 
conscience.  If  he  dislike  the  condition,  he  may  decline  the  office, 
in  like  manner  as  if  he  dislike  the  salary,  the  rank,  or  any  thing 
else  which  the  law  attaches  to  it. 

But  however  clear  the  right  may  be  (and  I  can   hardly  sup 

pose  any  gentleman  will  dispute  it),  the  expediency  of  retaining 

the  declaration  is  a  more  difficult  question.     It  is  said  not  to  be 

necessary,  because  in  this   Commonwealth   ninety-nine  out  of 

1* 


6  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

every  hundred  of  the  inhabitants  profess  to  believe  in  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  It  is  sufficiently  certain,  therefore,  that  persons  of 
this  description,  and  none  others,  will  ordinarily  be  chosen  to 
places  of  public  trust.  There  is  as  much  security,  it  is  said,  on 
this  subject,  as  the  necessity  of  the  case  requires.  And  as  there 
is  a  sort  of  opprobrium  incident  to  this  qualification,  —  a  mark- 
ing out,  for  observation  and  censorious  remark,  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual, or  a  very  few  individuals,  who  may  not  be  able  to  make 
the  declaration,  —  it  is  an  act,  if  not  of  injustice,  yet  of  unkind- 
ness,  and  of  unnecessary  rigor,  to  call  on  such  individuals  to 
make  the  declaration,  and  to  exclude  them  from  office  if  they 
refuse  to  do  so. 

There  is  also  another  class  of  objections,  which  have  been 
stated.  It  has  been  said,  that  there  are  many  very  devout  and 
serious  persons,  persons  who  esteem  the  Chriatian  religion  to  be 
above  all  price,  to  whom,  nevertheless,  the  terms  of  this  declara- 
tion seem  somewhat  too  strong  and  intense.  They  seem,  to 
these  persons,  to  require  the  declaration  of  that  faith  which  is 
deemed  essential  to  personal  salvation ;  and  therefore  not  at  all 
fit  to  be  adopted  as  a  declaration  of  belief  in  Christianity,  in  a 
more  popular  and  general  sense.  It  certainly  appears  to  me, 
that  this  is  a  mistaken  interpretation  of  the  terms;  that  they 
imply  only  a  general  assent  to  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revela- 
tion, and,  at  most,  to  the  supernatural  occurrences  which  estab- 
lish its  authenticity.  There  may,  however,  and  there  appears  to 
be,  conscience  in  this  objection ;  and  all  conscience  ought  to  be 
respected.  I  was  not  aware,  before  I  attended  the  discussions 
in  the  committee,  of  the  extent  to  which  this  objection  pre- 
vailed. 

There  is  one  other  consideration  to  which  I  will  allude,  al- 
though it  was  not  urged  in  committee.  It  is  this.  This  qualifi- 
cation is  made  applicable  only  to  the  executive  and  the  members 
of  the  legislature.  It  would  not  be  easy,  perhaps,  to  say  why  it 
should  not  be  extended  to  the  judiciary,  if  it  were  thought  neces- 
sary for  any  office.  There  can  be  no  office  in  which  the  sense 
of  religious  responsibility  is  more  necessary  than  in  that  of  a 
judge ;  especially  of  those  judges  who  pass,  in  the  last  resort,  on 
the  lives,  liberty,  and  property  of  every  man.  There  may  be 
among  legislators  strong  passions  and  bad  passions.  There 
may  be  party  heats  and  personal  bitterness.  But  legislation  is 


QUALIFICATIONS   FOR  OFFICE.  7 

in  its  nature  general :  laws  usually  affect  the  whole  society ;  and 
if  mischievous  or  unjust,  the  whole  society  is  alarmed,  and  seeks 
their  repeal.  The  judiciary  power,  on  the  other  hand,  acts  di- 
rectly on  individuals.  The  injured  may  surfer,  without  sympa- 
thy or  the  hope  of  redress.  The  last  hope  of  the  innocent,  under 
accusation  and  in  distress,  is  in  the  integrity  of  his  judges.  If 
this  fail,  all  fails ;  and  there  is  no  remedy,  on  this  side  the  bar 
of  Heaven.  Of  all  places,  therefore,  there  is  none  which  so 
imperatively  demands  that  he  who  occupies  it  should  be  under 
the  fear  of  God,  and  above  all  other  fear,  as  the  situation  of  a 
judge.  For  these  reasons,  perhaps,  it  might  be  thought  that  the 
constitution  has  not  gone  far  enough,  if  the  provisions  already 
in  it  were  deemed  necessary  to  the  public  security. 

I  believe  I  have  stated  the  substance  of  the  reasons  which 
appeared  to  have  weight  with  the  committee.  For  my  own 
part,  finding  this  declaration  in  the  constitution,  and  hearing  of 
no  practical  evil  resulting  from  it,  I  should  have  been  willing  to 
retain  it,  unless  considerable  objection  had  been  expressed  to  it. 
If  others  were  satisfied  with  it,  I  should  be.  I  do  not  consider 
it,  however,  essential  to  retain  it,  as  there  is  another  part  of  the 
constitution  which  recognizes,  in  the  fullest  manner,  the  benefits 
which  civil  society  derives  from  those  Christian  institutions 
which  cherish  piety,  morality,  and  religion.  I  am  clearly  of 
opinion,  that  we  should  not  strike  out  of  the  constitution  all 
recognition  of  the  Christian  religion.  I  am  desirous,  in  so  sol- 
emn a  transaction  as  the  establishment  of  a  constitution,  that 
we  should  keep  in  it  an  expression  of  our  respect  and  attachment 
to  Christianity ;  —  not,  indeed,  to  any  of  its  peculiar  forms,  but 
to  its  general  principles. 


BASIS   OF   THE    SENATE.* 


I  KNOW  not,  Sir,  whether  it  be  probable  that  any  opinions  or 
rotes  of  mine  are  ever  likely  to  be  of  more  permanent  impor- 
tance, than  those  which  I  may  give  in  the  discharge  of  my 
duties  in  this  body.  And  of  the  questions  which  may  arise 
here,  I  anticipate  no  one  of  greater  consequence  than  the  pres- 
ent. I  ask  leave,  therefore,  to  submit  a  few  remarks  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  committee. 

The  subject  before  us,  is  the  manner  of  constituting  the  legis- 
lative department  of  government.  "We  have  already  decided, 
that  the  legislative  power  shall  exist  as  it  has  heretofore  existed, 
in  two  separate  and  distinct  branches,  a  Senate  and  a  House  of 
Representatives.  We  propose  also,  at  least  I  have  heard  no 
intimation  of  a  contrary  opinion,  that  these  branches  shall,  in 
form,  possess  a  negative  on  each  other.  I  presume  I  may  also 
take  it  for  granted,  that  the  members  of  both  these  houses  are 
to  be  chosen  annually.  The  immediate  question  now  under 
discussion  is,  In  what  manner  shall  the  senators  be  elected? 
They  are  to  be  chosen  in  districts ;  but  shall  they  be  chosen  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  in  each  district,  or  in 
proportion  to  the  taxable  property  of  each  district,  or,  in  other 
words,  in  proportion  to  the  part  which  each  district  bears  in  the 
public  burdens  of  the  State.  The  latter  is  the  existing  provision 
of  the  constitution ;  and  to  this  I  give  my  support. 

The  resolution  of  the  honorable  member  from  Roxbury  f 
proposes  to  divide  the  State  into  certain  legislative  districts,  and 

*  Remarks  made  on  the  15th  of  December,  1820,  in  the  Convention,  upon  the 
Resolution  to  divide  the  Commonwealth  into  Districts  for  the  Choice  of  Senators 
according  to  Population. 

]  General  Dearborn. 


BASIS  OF   THE  SENATE.  9 

to  choose  a  given  number  of  senators,  and  a  given  number  of 
representatives,  in  each  district,  in  proportion  to  population. 
This  I  understand.  It  is  a  simple  and  plain  system.  The  hon- 
orable member  from  Pittsfield*  and  the  honorable  member  from 
Worcester!  support  the  first  part  of  this  proposition,  that  is  to 
say,  that  part  which  provides  for  the  choice  of  senators  accord- 
ing to  population,  without  explaining  entirely  their  views  as  to 
the  latter  part,  relative  to  the  choice  of  representatives.  They 
insist  that  the  questions  are  distinct,  and  capable  of  a  separate 
consideration  and  decision.  I  confess  myself,  Sir,  unable  to 
view  the  subject  in  that  light.  It  seems  to  me,  there  is  an 
essential  propriety  in  considering  the  questions  together ;  and 
in  forcing  our  opinions  of  them,  as  parts  respectively  of  one 
legislative  system.  The  legislature  is  one  great  machine  of  gov- 
ernment, not  two  machines.  The  two  houses  are  its  parts,  and 
its  utility  will,  as  it  seems  to  me,  depend  not  merely  on  the 
materias  of  these  parts,  or  their  separate  construction,  but  on 
their  accommodation,  also,  and  adaptation  to  each  other.  Their 
balancea  and  regulated  movement,  when  united,  is  that  which 
is  expected  to  insure  safety  to  the  State ;  and  who  can  give  any 
opinion  Qi  this,  without  first  seeing  the  construction  of  both, 
and  consilering  how  they  are  formed  and  arranged  with  respect 
to  their  mutual  relation  ?  I  cannot  imagine,  therefore,  how  the 
member  frtm  Worcester  should  think  it  uncandid  to  inquire  of 
him,  since  ^e  supports  this  mode  of  choosing  senators,  what 
mode  he  proposes  for  the  choice  of  representatives. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  constitution,  as  it  now  stands,  gives 
more  than  anVqual  and  proper  number  of  senators  to  the  county 
of  Suffolk.  Iwpe  I  may  be  thought  to  contend  for  the  general 
principle,  wjthort  being  influenced  by  any  regard  to  its  local  ap- 
plication. I  dinot  inquire  whether  the  senators  whom  this 
principle  brings  Wo  the  government  will  come  from  the  county 
of  Suffolk,  from  W  valley  of  the  Housatonic,  or  the  extremity 
of  Cape  Cod.  IWish  to  look  only  to  the  principle ;  and  as  I 
believe  that  to  be\sound  and  salutary,  I  shall  give  my  vote  in 

favor  of  maintaining  it. 

X 

In  my  opinion,  ar,  there  are  two  questions  before  the  com- 
mittee. The  first  i\  Shall  the  legislative  department  be  con- 

*  Mr.  Childs.  \  f  Mr.  Lincoln. 


10  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

structed  with  any  other  check  than  such  as  arises  simply  from 
dividing  the  members  of  this  department  into  two  houses  ?  The 
second  is,  If  such  other  and  further  check  ought  to  exist,  in  wliat 
manner  shall  it  be  created  ? 

If  the  two  houses  are  to  be  chosen  in  the  manner  proposed  by 
the  resolutions  of  the  member  from  Roxbury,  there  is  obvicusly 
no  other  check  or  control  than  a  division  into  separate  ciam- 
bers.  The  members  of  both  houses  are  to  be  chosen  zt  the 
same  time,  by  the  same  electors,  in  the  same  districts,  aid  for 
the  same  term  of  office.  They  will  of  course  all  be  actuated  by 
the  same  feelings  and  interests.  Whatever  motives  may  at  the 
moment  exist  to  elect  particular  members  of  one  house,  vill  op- 
erate equally  on  the  choice  of  the  members  of  the  other.  There 
is  so  little  of  real  utility  in  this  mode,  that,  if  nothing  nore  be 
done,  it  would  be  more  expedient  to  choose  all  the  menbers  of 
the  legislature,  without  distinction,  simply  as  membes  of  the 
legislature,  and  to  make  the  division  into  two  houses, either  by 
lot  or  otherwise,  after  these  members  thus  chosen  should  have 
come  up  to  the  capital. 

I  understand  the  reason  of  checks  and  balances,  ii  the  legis- 
lative power,  to  arise  from  the  truth,  that,  in  represeitative  gov- 
ernments, that  department  is  the  leading  and  prfdominating 
power ;  and  if  its  will  may  be  at  any  time  suddenl;  and  hastily 
expressed,  there  is  great  danger  that  it,  may  overthrow  all  other 
powers.  Legislative  bodies  naturally  feel  strong,  because  they 
are  numerous,  and  because  they  consider  themseVes  as  the  im- 
mediate representatives  of  the  people.  They  depend  on  pub- 
lic opinion  to  sustain  their  measures,  and  they  uidoubtedly  pos- 
sess great  means  of  influencing  public  opinioi.  With  all  the 
guards  which  can  be  raised  by  constitutional  provisions,  we  are 
not  likely  to  be  too  well  secured  against  cas«  of  improper,  or 
hasty,  or  intemperate  legislation.  It  may  Je  observed,  also, 
that  the  executive  power,  so  uniformly  the  o'ject  of  jealousy  to 
republics,  has  in  the  States  of  this  Union  ben  deprived  of  the 
greater  part  both  of  its  importance  and  it?  splendor,  by  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  general  government.  Vhile  the  States  pos- 
sessed the  power  of  making  war  and  pace,  and  maintained 
•military  forces  by  their  own  authority,  th?  power  of  the  State 
executives  was  very  considerable  and  espectable.  It  might 
then  even  be  an  object,  in  some  cases,  c  a  just  and  warranta- 


BASIS  OF  THE   SENATE.  11 

ble  jealousy.  But  a  great  change  has  been  wrought.  The  care 
of  foreign  relations,  the  maintenance  of  armies  and  navies,  and 
their  command  and  control,  have  devolved  on  another  govern- 
ment. Even  the  power  of  appointment,  so  exclusively,  one 
would  think,  an  executive  power,  is,  in  very  many  of  the  States, 
held  or  controlled  by  the  legislature ;  that  department  either 
making  the  principal  appointments  itself,  or  else  surrounding 
the  chief  executive  magistrate  with  a  council  of  its  own  elec- 
tion, possessing  a  negative  upon  his  nominations. 

Nor  has  it  been  found  easy,  nor  in  all  cases  possible,  to  pre- 
serve the  judicial  department  from  the  progress  of  legislative 
encroachment.  Indeed,  in  some  of  the  States,  all  judges  are  ap- 
pointed by  the  legislature  ;  in  others,  although  appointed  by  the 
executive,  they  are  removable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature. 
In  all,  the  provision  for  their  maintenance  is  necessarily  to  be 
made  by  the  legislature.  As  if  Montesquieu  had  never  demon- 
trated  the  necessity  of  separating  the  departments  of  govern- 
ments ;  as  if  Mr.  Adams  had  not  done  the  same  thing,  with 
equal  ability,  and  more  clearness,  in  his  Defence  of  the  Ameri- 
can Constitutions ;  as  if  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Hamilton  and 
Mr.  Madison  were  already  forgotten ;  we  see,  all  around  us,  a 
tendency  to  extend  the  legislative  power  over  the  proper  sphere 
of  the  other  departments.  And  as  the  legislature,  from  the  very 
nature  of  things,  is  the  most  powerful  department,  it  becomes 
'  necessary  to  provide,  in  the  mode  of  forming  it,  some  check 
which  shall  insure  deliberation  and  caution  in  its  measures.  If 
all  legislative  power  rested  in  one  house,  it  is  very  problematical 
whether  any  proper  independence  could  be  given,  either  to  the 
executive  or  the  judiciary.  Experience  does  not  speak  encour- 
agingly on  that  point.  If  we  look  through  the  several  constitu- 
tions of  the  States,  we  shall  perceive  that  generally  the  depart- 
ments are  most  distinct  and  independent  where  the  legislature 
is  composed  of  two  houses,  with  equal  authority,  and  mutual 
chocks.  If  all  legislative  power  be  in  one  popular  body,  all  other 
power,  sooner  or  later,  will  be  there  also. 

I  wish,  now,  Sir,  to  correct  a  most  important  mistake  in  the 
manner  in  which  this  question  has  been  stated.  It  has  been 
said,  that  we  propose  to  give  to  property,  merely  as  such,  a  con- 
trol over  the  people,  numerically  considered.  But  this  I  take 
not  to  be  at  all  the  true  nature  of  the  proposition.  The  Senate 


10  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

structed  with  any  other  check  than  such  as  arises  simply  from 
dividing  the  members  of  this  department  into  two  houses  ?  The 
second  is,  If  such  other  and  further  check  ought  to  exist,  in  what 
manner  shall  it  be  created  ? 

If  the  two  houses  are  to  be  chosen  in  the  manner  proposed  by 
the  resolutions  of  the  member  from  Roxbury,  there  is  obvicusly 
no  other  check  or  control  than  a  division  into  separate  ciam- 
bers.  The  members  of  both  houses  are  to  be  chosen  tt  the 
same  time,  by  the  same  electors,  in  the  same  districts,  aid  for 
the  same  term  of  office.  They  will  of  course  all  be  actuaced  by 
the  same  feelings  and  interests.  Whatever  motives  may  at  the 
moment  exist  to  elect  particular  members  of  one  house,  ;vill  op- 
erate equally  on  the  choice  of  the  members  of  the  other.  There 
is  so  little  of  real  utility  in  this  mode,  that,  if  nothing  nore  be 
done,  it  would  be  more  expedient  to  choose  all  the  menbers  of 
the  legislature,  without  distinction,  simply  as  membes  of  the 
legislature,  and  to  make  the  division  into  two  houses, either  by 
lot  or  otherwise,  after  these  members  thus  chosen  sluuld  have 
come  up  to  the  capital. 

I  understand  the  reason  of  checks  and  balances,  ii  the  legis- 
lative power,  to  arise  from  the  truth,  that,  in  represeitative  gov- 
ernments, that  department  is  the  leading  and  prfdominating 
power ;  and  if  its  will  may  be  at  any  time  suddenl;  and  hastily 
expressed,  there  is  great  danger  that  it  may  overthrow  all  other 
powers.  Legislative  bodies  naturally  feel  strong,  because  they 
are  numerous,  and  because  they  consider  themseVes  as  the  im- 
mediate representatives  of  the  people.  They  depend  on  pub- 
lic opinion  to  sustain  their  measures,  and  they  uidoubtedly  pos- 
sess great  means  of  influencing  public  opinioi.  With  all  the 
guards  which  can  be  raised  by  constitutional  provisions,  we  are 
not  likely  to  be  too  well  secured  against  cas«  of  improper,  or 
hasty,  or  intemperate  legislation.  It  may  Je  observed,  also, 
that  the  executive  power,  so  uniformly  the  o'ject  of  jealousy  to 
republics,  has  in  the  States  of  this  Union  ben  deprived  of  the 
greater  part  both  of  its  importance  and  itf  splendor,  by  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  general  government.  Vhile  the  States  pos- 
sessed the  power  of  making  war  and  pace,  and  maintained 
military  forces  by  their  own  authority,  tte  power  of  the  State 
executives  was  very  considerable  and  espectable.  It  might 
then  even  be  an  object,  in  some  cases,  c  a  just  and  warranta- 


BASIS  OF  THE   SENATE.  11 

ble  jealousy.  But  a  great  change  has  been  wrought.  The  care 
of  foreign  relations,  the  maintenance  of  armies  and  navies,  and 
their  command  and  control,  have  devolved  on  another  govern- 
ment. Even  the  power  of  appointment,  so  exclusively,  one 
would  think,  an  executive  power,  is,  in  very  many  of  the  States, 
held  or  controlled  by  the  legislature ;  that  department  either 
making  the  principal  appointments  itself,  or  else  surrounding 
the  chief  executive  magistrate  with  a  council  of  its  own  elec- 
tion, possessing  a  negative  upon  his  nominations. 

Nor  has  it  been  found  easy,  nor  in  all  cases  possible,  to  pre- 
serve the  judicial  department  from  the  progress  of  legislative 
encroachment.  Indeed,  in  some  of  the  States,  all  judges  are  ap- 
pointed by  the  legislature ;  in  others,  although  appointed  by  the 
executive,  they  are  removable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature. 
In  all,  the  provision  for  their  maintenance  is  necessarily  to  be 
made  by  the  legislature.  As  if  Montesquieu  had  never  demon- 
trated  the  necessity  of  separating  the  departments  of  govern- 
ments ;  as  if  Mr.  Adams  had  not  done  the  same  thing,  with 
equal  ability,  and  more  clearness,  in  his  Defence  of  the  Ameri- 
can Constitutions ;  as  if  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Hamilton  and 
Mr.  Madison  were  already  forgotten ;  we  see,  all  around  us,  a 
tendency  to  extend  the  legislative  power  over  the  proper  sphere 
of  the  other  departments.  And  as  the  legislature,  from  the  very 
nature  of  things,  is  the  most  powerful  department,  it  becomes 
'  necessary  to  provide,  in  the  mode  of  forming  it,  some  check 
which  shall  insure  deliberation  and  caution  in  its  measures.  If 
all  legislative  power  rested  in  one  house,  it  is  very  problematical 
whether  any  proper  independence  could  be  given,  either  to  the 
executive  or  the  judiciary.  Experience  does  not  speak  encour- 
agingly on  that  point.  If  we  look  through  the  several  constitu- 
tions of  the  States,  we  shall  perceive  that  generally  the  depart- 
ments are  most  distinct  and  independent  where  the  legislature 
is  composed  of  two  houses,  with  equal  authority,  and  mutual 
checks.  If  all  legislative  power  be  in  one  popular  body,  all  other 
power,  sooner  or  later,  will  be  there  also. 

I  wish,  now,  Sir,  to  correct  a  most  important  mistake  in  the 
manner  in  which  this  question  has  been  stated.  It  has  been 
said,  that  we  propose  to  give  to  property,  merely  as  such,  a  con- 
trol over  the  people,  numerically  considered.  But  this  I  take 
not  to  be  at  all  the  true  nature  of  the  proposition.  The  Senate 


12  CONSTITUTION   OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

is  not  to  be  a  check  on  the  people,  but  on  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. It  is  the  case  of  an  authority,  given  to  one  agent,  to 
check  or  control  the  acts  of  another.  The  people,  having  con- 
ferred  on  the  House  of  Representatives  powers  which  are  great, 
and,  from  their  nature,  liable  to  abuse,  require,  for  their  own  se- 
curity, another  house,  which  shall  possess  an  effectual  negative 
on  the  first.  This  does  not  limit  the  power  of  the  people ;  but 
only  the  authority  of  their  agents.  It  is  not  a  restraint  on  their 
rights,  but  a  restraint  on  that  power  which  they  have  delegated. 
It  limits  the  authority  of  agents  in  making  laws  to  bind  their 
principals.  And  if  it  be  wise  to  give  one  agent  the  power  of 
checking  or  controlling  another,  it  is  equally  wise,  most  mani- 
festly, that  there  should  be  some  difference  of  character,  senti- 
ment, feeling,  or  origin  in  that  agent  who  is  to  possess  this 
control.  Otherwise,  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  control 
will  ever  be  exercised.  To  require  the  consent  of  two  agents 
to  the  validity  of  an  act,  and  yet  to  appoint  agents  so  similar, 
in  all  respects,  as  to  create  a  moral  certainty  that  what  one  does 
the  other  will  do  also,  would  be  inconsistent,  and  nugatory. 
There  can  be  no  effectual  control,  without  some  difference  of 
origin,  or  character,  or  interest,  or  feeling,  or  sentiment.  And 
the  great  question  in  this  country  has  been,  where  to  find,  or 
how  to  create,  this  difference,  in  governments  entirely  elective 
and  popular. 

Various  modes  have  been  attempted  in  various  States..  In 
some,, a  difference  of  qualification  has  been  required  in  the  per- 
sons to  be  elected.  This  obviously  produces  little  or  no  effect. 
All  property  qualification,  even  the  highest,  is  so  low,  as  to  pro- 
duce no  exclusion,  to  any  extent,  in  any  of  the  States.  A  dif- 
ference of  age  in  the  persons  elected  is  sometimes  required; 
but  this  is  found  to  be  equally  unimportant.  Neither  has  it  hap- 
pened, that  any  consideration  of  the  relative  rank  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  two  houses  has  had  much  effect  on  the  character  of 
their  constituent  members.  Both  in  the  State  governments,  and 
in  the  United  States  government,  we  daily  see  persons  elected 
into  the  House  of  Representatives  who  have  been  members  of 
the  Senate.  Public  opinion  does  not  attach  so  much  weight 
and  importance  to  the  distinction,  as  to  lead  individuals  greatly 
to  regard  it.  In  some  of  the  States,  a  different  sort  of  qualifi- 
cation in  the  electors  is  required  for  the  two  houses ;  and  this  is 


BASIS  OF  THE  SENATE.  13. 

probably  the  most  proper  and  efficient  check.  But  such  has  not 
been  the  provision  in  this  Commonwealth,  and  there  are  strong 
objections  to  introducing  it  In  other  cases,  again,  there  is  a 
double  election  for  senators ;  electors  being  first  chosen,  who  elect 
senators.  Such  is  the  case  in  Maryland,  where  the  senators  are 
elected  for  five  years,  by  electors  appointed  in  equal  numbers  by 
the  counties  ;  a  mode  of  election  not  unlike  that  of  choosing  rep- 
resentatives in  the  British  Parliament  for  the  boroughs  of  Scot- 
land. In  this  State,  the  qualification  of  the  voters  is  the  same 
for  the  two  houses,  and  there  is  no  essential  difference  in  that  of 
the  persons  chosen.  But,  in  apportioning  the  Senate  to  the  dif- 
ferent districts  of  the  State,  the  present  constitution  assigns  to 
each  district  a  number  proportioned  to  its  public  taxes.  Whether 
this  be  the  best  mode  of  producing  a  difference  in  the  construc- 
tion of  the  two  houses,  is  not  now  the  question ;  but  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  this  be  better  than  no  mode. 

The  gentleman  from  Roxbury  called  for  authority  on  this  sub- 
ject. He  asked,  what  writer  of  reputation  had  approved  the 
principle  for  which  we  contend.  I  should  hope,  Sir,  that,  even 
if  this  call  could  not  be  answered,  it  would  not  necessarily  fol- 
low that  the  principle  should  be  expunged.  Governments  are 
instituted  for  practical  benefit,  not  for  subjects  of  speculative 
reasoning  merely.  The  best  authority  for  the  support  of  a 
particular  principle  or  provision  in  government  is  experience; 
and  of  all  experience,  our  own,  if  it  have  been  long  enough  to 
give  the  principle  a  fair  trial,  should  be  most  decisive.  This 
provision  has  existed  for  forty  years,  and  while  so  many  gentle- 
men contend  that  it  is  wrong  in  theory,  no  one  has  shown  that 
it  has  been  either  injurious  or  inconvenient  in  practice.  No  one 
pretends  that  it  has  caused  a  bad  law  to  be  enacted,  or  a  good 
one  to  be  rejected.  To  call  on  us,  then,  to  strike  out  this  pro- 
vision, because  we  should  be  able  to  find  no  authority  for  it  in 
any  book  on  government,  would  seem  to  be  like  requiring  a 
mechanic  to  abandon  the  use  of  an  implement,  which  had 
always  answered  all  the  purp6ses  designed  by  it,  because  he 
could  find  no  model  of  it  in  the  patent-office. 

But,  Sir,  I  take  the  principle  to  be  well  established,  by  writers 
of  the  greatest  authority.  In  the  first  place,  those  who  have 
treated  of  natural  law  have  maintained,  as  a  principle  of  that 
law,  that,  as  far  as  the  object  of  society  is  the  protection  of 

VOL.    III.  2 


14  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

something  in  which  the  members  possess  unequal  shares,  it  is 
just  that  the  weight  of  each  person  in  the  common  councils 
should  bear  a  relation  and  proportion  to  his  interest.  Such  is 
the  sentiment  of  Grotius,  and  he  refers,  in  support  of  it,  to  sev- 
eral institutions  among  the  ancient  states. 

Those  authors  who  have  written  more  particularly  on  the  sub- 
ject of  political  institutions  have,  many  of  them,  maintained 
similar  sentiments.  Not,  indeed,  that  every  man's  power  should 
be  in  exact  proportion  to  his  property,  but  that,  in  a  general 
sense,  and  in  a  general  form,  property,  as  such,  should  have  its 
weight  and  influence  in  political  arrangement.  Montesquieu 
speaks  with  approbation  of  the  early  Roman  regulation,  made 
by  Servius  Tullius,  by  which  the  people  were  distributed  into 
classes,  according  to  their  property,  and  the  public  burdens  ap- 
portioned to  each  individual  according  to  the  degree  of  powei 
which  he  possessed  in  the  government.  By  this  regulation, 
he  observes,  some  bore  with  the  greatness  of  their  tax  because 
of  their  proportionable  participation  in  power  and  credit ;  others 
consoled  themselves  for  the  smallness  of  their  power  and  credit 
by  the  smallness  of  their  tax.  ,One  of  the  most  ingenious  of 
political  writers  is  Mr.  Harrington,  an  author  not  now  read  so 
much  as  he  deserves.  It  is  his  leading  object,  in  his  Oceana,  to 
prove,  that  power  naturally  and  necessarily  follows  property. 
He  maintains  that  a  government  founded  on  property  is  legiti- 
mately founded ;  and  that  a  government  founded  on  the  disre- 
gard of  property  is  founded  in  injustice,  and  can  only  be  main- 
tained by  military  force.  "  If  one  man,"  says  he,  "  be  sole  land- 
lord, like  the  Grand  Seignior,  his  empire  is  absolute.  If  a  few 
possess  the  land,  this  makes  the  Gothic  or  feudal  constitution. 
If  the  whole  people  be  landlords,  then  is  it  a  commonwealth." 
"  It  is  strange,"  says  an  ingenious  person  in  the  last  century, 
"that  H.vrington  should  be  the  first  man  to  find  out  so  evi- 
dent and  demonstrable  a  truth  as  that  of  property  being  the 
true  basis  and  measure  of  power."  *  In  truth,  he  was  not  the 
hrsfr.  The  idea  is  as  old  as  political  science  itself.  It  may  be 
found  in  Aristotle,  Lord  Bacon,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  and  other 
writers.  Harrington  seems,  however,  to  be  the  first  writer  who 
Has  illustrated  and  expanded  the  principle,  and  given  to  it  the 

*  Spence's  Anecdotes  of  Books  and  Men,  p.  75. 


BASIS  OF  THE   SENATE.  15 

effect  and  prominence  which  justly  belong  to  it.  To  this  senti- 
ment, Sir,  I  entirely  agree.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  plain,  that,  in 
the  absence  of  military  force,  political  power  naturally  and 
necessarily  goes  into  the  hands  which  hold  the  property.  In  my 
judgment,  therefore,  a  republican  form  of  government  rests,  not 
more  on  political  constitutions,  than  on  those  laws  which  regu- 
late the  descent  and  transmission  of  property. 

If  the  nature  of  our  institutions  be  to  found  government  on 
property,  and  that  it  should  look  to  those  who  hold  property  for 
its  protection,  it  is  entirely  just  that  property  should  have  its  due 
weight  and  consideration  in  political  arrangements.  Life  and 
personal  liberty  are  no  doubt  to  be  protected  by  law ;  but  prop- 
erty is  also  to  be  protected  by  law,  and  is  the  fund  out  of  which 
the  means  for  protecting  life  and  liberty  are  usually  furnished. 
We  have  no  experience  that  teaches  us  that  any  other  rights  are 
safe  where  property  is  not  safe.  Confiscation  and  plunder  are 
generally,  in  revolutionary  commotions,  not  far  before  banish- 
ment, imprisonment,  and  death.  It  would  be  monstrous  to  give 
even  the  name  of  government  to  any  association  in  which  the 
rights  of  property  should  not  be  completely  secured.  The  disas- 
trous revolutions  which  the  world  has  witnessed,  those  political 
thunder-storms  and  earthquakes  which  have  shaken  the  pillars 
of  society  to  their  very  deepest  foundations,  have  been  revolu- 
tions against  property.  Since  the  honorable  member  from 
Quincy*  has  alluded  on  this  occasion  to  the  history  of  the  an- 
cient states,  it  would  be  presumption  in  me  to  dwell  upon  it 
It  may  be  truly  said,  however,  I  think,  that  Rome  herself  is 
an  example  of  the  mischievous  influence  of  the  popular  power 
when  disconnected  with  property  and  in  a  corrupt  age.  It  is 
true  the  arm  of  Caesar  prostrated  her  liberty ;  but  Caesar  found 
his  support  within  her  very  walls.  Those  who  were  profligate 
and  necessitous,  and  factious  and  desperate,  and  capable,  there- 
fore, of  being  influenced  by  bribes  and  largesses,  which  were 
distributed  with  the  utmost  prodigality,  outnumbered  and  out- 
voted, in  the  tribes  and  centuries,  the  substantial,  sober,  pru- 
dent, and  faithful  citizens.  Property  was  in  the  hands  of  one 
description  of  men,  and  power  in  those  of  another;  and  the 
balance  of  the  constitution  was  destroyed.  Let  it  never  be 

*  President  Adams. 


16  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

forgotten  that  it  was  the  popular  magistrates,  elevated  to  office 
where  the  bad  outnumbered  the  good,  —  where  those  who  had 
not  a  stake  in  the  commonwealth,  by  clamor  and  noise  and  num- 
bers, drowned  the  voice  of  those  who  had,  —  that  laid  the  neck 
of  Rome  at  the  feet  of  her  conqueror.  When  Caesar,  manifest- 
ing a  disposition  to  march  his  army  against  the  capital,  ap- 
proached that  little  stream  which  has  become  so  memorable 
from  its  association  with  his  history,  a  decree  was  proposed  in 
the  Senate  declaring  him  a  public  enemy  if  he  did  not  dis- 
band his  troops.  To  this  decree  the  popular  tribunes,  the 
sworn  protectors  of  the  people,  interposed  their  negative ;  and 
thus  opened  the  high  road  to  Rome,  and  the  gates  of  the  city 
herself,  to  the  approach  of  her  conqueror. 

The  English  Revolution  of  1688  was  a  revolution  in  favor  of 
property,  as  well  as  of  other  rights.  It  was  brought  about  by 
the  men  of  property  for  their  security ;  and  our  own  immortal 
Revolution  was  undertaken,  not  to  shake  or  plunder  property, 
but  to  protect  it.  The  acts  of  which  the  country  complained 
were  such  as  violated  rights  of  property.  An  immense  majority 
of  all  those  who  had  an  interest  in  the  soil  were  in  favor  of  the 
Revolution ;  and  they  carried  it  through,  looking  to  its  results 
lor  the  security  of  their  possessions.  It  was  the  property  of  the 
frugal  yeomanry  of  New  England,  hard  earned,  but  freely  given, 
that  enabled  her  to  act  her  proper  part  and  perform  her  full  duty 
in  achieving  the  independence  of  the  country. 

I  would  not  be  thought,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  be  among  those 
who  underrate  the  value  of  military  service.  My  heart  beats,  I 
trust,  as  responsive  as  any  one's,  to  a  soldier's  claim  for  honor 
and  renown.  It  has  ever  been  my  opinion,  however,  that  while 
celebrating  the  military  achievements  of  our  countrymen  in  the 
Revolutionary  contest,  we  have  not  always  done  equal  justice  to 
the  merits  and  the  sufferings  of  those  who  sustained,  on  their 
property,  and  on  their  means  of  subsistence,  the  great  burden  of 
the  war.  Any  one,  who  has  had  occasion  to  be  acquainted  with 
the  records  of  the  New  England  towns,  knows  well  how  to  esti- 
mate those  merits  and  those  sufferings.  Nobler  records  of  patri- 
otism exist  nowhere.  Nowhere  can  there  be  found  higher  proofs 
of  a  spirit  that  was  ready  to  hazard  all,  to  pledge  all,  to  sacrifice 
all,  in  the  cause  of  the  country.  Instances  were  not  infrequent, 
in  which  small  freeholders  parted  with  their  last  hoof,  and  the 


BASIS  OF  THE  SENATE.  17 

last  measure  of  corn  from  their  granaries,  to  supply  provisions  for 
the  troops,  and  hire  service  for  the  ranks.  The  voice  of  Otis 
and  of  Adams  in  Faneuil  Hall  found  its  full  and  true  echo  in  the 
little  councils  of  the  interior  towns ;  and  if  within  the  Continen- 
tal Congress  patriotism  shone  more  conspicuously,  it  did  not 
there  exist  more  truly,  nor  burn  more  fervently ;  it  did  not  render 
the  day  more  anxious,  or  the  night  more  sleepless ;  it  sent  up  no 
more  ardent  prayer  to  God,  for  succor ;  and  it  put  forth  in  no 
greater  degree  the  fulness  of  its  effort,  and  the  energy  of  its 
whole  soul  and  spirit,  in  the  common  cause,  than  it  did  in  the 
small  assemblies  of  the  towns.  I  cannot,  therefore,  Sir,  agree 
that  it  is  in  favor  of  society,  or  in  favor  of  the  people,  to  con- 
stitute government  with  an  entire  disregard  to  those  who  bear 
the  public  burdens  in  times  of  great  exigency.  This  question 
has  been  argued,  as  if  it  were  proposed  only  to  give  an  advan- 
tage to  a  few  rich  men.  I  do  not  so  understand  it.  I  consider 
it  as  giving  property,  generally,  a  representation  in  the  Senate, 
both  because  it  is  just  that  it  should  have  such  representation, 
and  because  it  is  a  convenient  mode  of  providing  that  check 
which  the  constitution  of  the  legislature  requires.  I  do  not 
say  that  such  check  might  not  be  found  in  some  other  pro- 
vision ;  but  this  is  the  provision  already  established,  and  it  is, 
in  my  opinion,  a  just  and  proper  one. 

I  wiE  beg  leave  to  ask,  Sir,  whether  property  may  not  be  said 
to  deserve  this  portion  of  respect  and  power  in  the  govern- 
ment ?  It  pays,  at  this  moment,  I  think,  five  sixths  of  all  the 
public  taxes;  one  sixth  only  being  raised  on  persons.  Not 
only,  Sir,  do  these  taxes  support  those  burdens  which  ah1  gov- 
ernments require,  but  we  have,  in  New  England,  from  early 
times  held  property  to  be  subject  to  another  great  public  use ; 
I  mean  the  support  of  schools.  Sir,  property,  and  the  power 
which  the  law  exercises  over  it  for  the  purpose  of  instruction, 
are  the  basis  of  the  system.  It  is  entitled  to  the  respect  and 
protection  of  government,  because,  in  a  very  vital  respect,  it 
aids  and  sustains  government.  The  honorable  member  from 
Worcester,  in  contending  for  the  admission  of  the  mere  popu- 
lar principle  in  all  branches  of  the  government,  told  us,  that 
our  system  rested  on  the  intelligence  of  the  community.  He 
told  us  truly.  But  allow  me,  Sir,  to  ask  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman, what,  but  property,  supplies  the  means  of  that  intelli- 
2* 


18  CONSTITUTION   OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

gence?  What  living  fountain  feeds  this  ever-flowing,  ever- 
refreshing,  ever-fertilizing  stream  of  public  instruction  and  gen- 
eral intelligence  ?  If  we  take  away  from  the  towns  the  power 
of  assessing  taxes  on  property,  will  the  school-houses  remain 
open?  If  we  deny  to  the  poor  the  benefit  which  they  now 
derive  from  the  property  of  the  rich,  will  their  children  remain  on 
their  forms,  or  will  they  not,  rather,  be  in  the  streets,  in  idleness 
and  in  vice  ? 

I  might,  ask  again,  Sir,  how  is  it  with  religious  instruction  ? 
Do  not  the  towns  and  parishes  raise  money  by  vote  of  the  ma- 
jority, assessed  on  property,  for  the  maintenance  of  religious 
worship  ?  Are  not  the  poor  as  well  as  the  rich  benefited  by  the 
means  of  attending  on  public  worship,  and  do  they  not  equally 
with  the  rich  possess  a  voice  and  vote  in  the  choice  of  the 
minister,  and  in  all  other  parish  concerns  ?  Does  any  man,  Sir, 
wish  to  try  the  experiment  of  striking  out  of  the  constitution 
the  regard  which  it  has  hitherto  maintained  for  property,  and  of 
-foregoing  also  the  extraordinary  benefit  which  society  among  us 
for  near  two  centuries  has  derived  from  laying  the  burden  of  re- 
ligious and  literary  instruction  of  all  classes  upon  property? 
Does  any  man  wish  to  see  those  only  worshipping  God  who  are 
able  to  build  churches  and  maintain  ministers  for  themselves, 
and  those  children  only  educated  whose  parents  possess  the 
means  of  educating  them  ?  Sir,  it  is  as  unwise  as  it  is  unjust 
to  make  property  an  object  of  jealousy.  Instead  of  being,  in 
any  just  sense,  a  popular  course,  such  a  course  would  be  most 
injurious  and  destructive  to  the  best  interests  of  the  people. 
The  nature  of  our  laws  sufficiently  secures  us  against  any  dan- 
gerous accumulations ;  and,  used  and  diffused  as  we  have  it,  the 
whole  operation  of  property  is  in  the  highest  degree  useful,  both 
to  the  rich  and  to  the  poor.  I  rejoice,  Sir,  that  every  man  in  this 
community  may  call  all  property  his  own,  so  far  as  he  has  oc- 
casion for  it,  to  furnish  for  himself  and  his  children  the  blessings 
of  religious  instruction  and  the  elements  of  knowledge.  This 
heavenly  and  this  earthly  light  he  is  entitled  to  by  the  funda- 
mental laws.  It  is  every  poor  man's  undoubted  birthright,  it  is 
\hc  great  blessing  which  this  constitution  has  secured  to  him,  it 
is  his  solace  in  life,  and  it  may  well  be  his  consolation  in  death, 
that  his  country  stands  pledged,  by  the  faith  which  it  has  plight- 
ed to  all  its  citizens,  to  protect  his  children  from  ignorance,  ba^ 
barism,  and  vice. 


BASIS  OF  THE  SENATE.  19 

I  will  now  proceed  to  ask,  Sir,  whether  we  have  not  seen,  and 
whether  we  do  not  at  this  moment  see,  the  advantage  and  bene- 
fit of  giving  security  to  property,  by  this  and  all  other  reason- 
able and  just  provisions.  The  constitution  has  stood  on  its 
present  basis  forty  years.  Let  me  ask,  What  State  has  been 
more  distinguished  for  wise  and  wholesome  legislation  ?  I 
speak,  Sir,  without  the  partiality  of  a  native,  and  also  without 
intending  the  compliment  of  a  stranger ;  and  I  ask,  What  exam- 
ple have  we  had  of  better  legislation  ?  No  violent  measures  af- 
fecting property  have  been  attempted.  Stop  laws,  suspension 
laws,  tender  laws,  all  the  tribe  of  these  arbitrary  and  tyrannical 
interferences  between  creditor  and  debtor,  which,  wheresoever 
practised,  generally  end  in  the  ruin  of  both,  are  strangers  to  our 
statute-book.  An  upright  and  intelligent  judiciary  has  come  in 
aid  of  wholesome  legislation;  and  general  security  for  public 
and  private  rights  has  been  the  result.  I  do  not  say  that  this  is 
peculiar,  I  do  not  say  that  others  have  not  done  as  well.  It  is 
enough  that,  in  these  respects,  we  shall  be  satisfied  that  we  are 
not  behind  our  neighbors.  No  doubt,  Sir,  there  are  benefits 
of  every  kind,  and  of  great  value,  in  an  organization  of  gov- 
ernment, both  in  legislative  and  judicial  administration,  which 
well  secures  the  rights  of  property ;  and  we  should  find  it  so,  by 
unfortunate  experience,  should  that  character  be  lost.  There 
are  millions  of  personal  property  now  in  this  Commonwealth 
which  are  easily  transferable,  and  would  be  instantly  transferred 
elsewhere,  if  any  doubt  existed  of  its  entire  security.  I  do  not 
know  how  much  of  this  stability  of  government,  and  of  the 
general  respect  for  it,  may  be  fairly  imputed  to  this  particular 
mode  of  organizing  the  Senate.  It  has,  no  doubt,  had  some 
effect.  It  indicates  a  respect  for  the  rights  of  property,  and  may 
have  operated  on  opinion  as  well  as  upon  measures.  Now  to 
strike  out  and  obliterate  it,  as  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  in  a 
high  degree  unwise  and  improper. 

As  to  the  rig-fit  of  apportioning  senators  upon  this  principle,  I 
do  not  understand  how  there  can  be  a  question  about  it.  All 
government  is  a  modification  of  general  principles  and  general 
truths,  with  a  view  to  practical  utility.  Personal  liberty,  for  in- 
stance, is  a  clear  right,  and  is  to  be  provided  for ;  but  it  is  not  a 
clearer  right  than  the  right  of  property,  though  it  may  be  more 
important.  It  is,  therefore,  entitled  to  protection.  But  property 


20  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

is  also  to  be  protected ;  and  when  it  is  remembered  how  great  a 
portion  of  the  people  of  this  State  possess  property,  I  cannot 
understand  how  its  protection  or  its  influence  is  hostile  to  their 
rights  and  privileges.  For  these  reasons,  Sir,  I  am  in  favor  of 
maintaining  that  check,  in  the  constitution  of  the  legislature, 
which  has  so  long  existed  there. 

I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Worcester  *  to  be  in  favor 
of  a  check,  but  it  seems  to  me  he  would  place  it  in  the  wrong 
house.  Besides,  the  sort  of  check  he  proposes  appears  to  me 
to  be  of  a  novel  nature,  as  a  balance  in  government.  He  pro- 
poses to  choose  the  senators  according  to  the  number  of  inhab- 
itants; and  to  choose  representatives,  not  according  to  that 
number,  but  in  proportions  greatly  unequal  in  the  town  corpo- 
rations. It  has  been  stated  to  result  from  computation,  and  I  do 
not  understand  it  to  be  denied,  that,  on  his  system,  a  majority 
of  the  representatives  will  be  chosen  by  towns  not  containing 
one  third  part  of  the  whole  population  of  the  State.  I  would 
beg  to  ask,  Sir,  on  what  principle  this  can  stand ;  especially  in 
the  judgment  of  those  who  regard  population  as  the  only  just 
basis  of  representation.  But,  Sir,  I  have  a  preliminary  objec- 
tion to  this  system ;  which  is,  that  it  reverses  all  our  common 
notions,  and  constitutes  the  popular  house  upon  anti-popular 
principles.  We  are  to  have  a  popular  Senate  of  thirty-six  mem- 
bers, and  we  are  to  place  the  check  of  the  system  in  a  House  of 
Representatives  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  members !  All  money 
bills  are  to  originate  in  the  House,  yet  the  House  is  not  to  be 
the  popular  branch.  It  is  to  exceed  the  Senate,  seven  or  eight 
to  one,  in  point  of  numbers,  yet  the  Senate  is  to  be  chosen  on 
the  popular  principle,  and  the  House  on  some  other  principle. 

It  is  necessary  here,  Sir,  to  consider  the  manner  of  electing 
representatives  in  this  Commonwealth,  as  heretofore  practised, 
the  necessity  which  exists  of  reducing  the  present  number  of 
representatives,  and  the  propositions  which  have  been  submitted 
for  that  purpose.  Representation  by  towns  or  townships  (as 
they  might  have  been  originally  more  properly  called)  is  peculiar 
to  New  England.  It  has  existed,  however,  since  the  first  settle- 
ment of  the  country.  These  local  districts  are  so  small,  and  of 
such  unequal  population,  that  if  every  town  is  to  have  one  rep- 

*  Mr.  Lincoln. 


BASIS  OF  THE  SENATE.  21 

resentative,  and  larger  towns  as  many  more  as  their  population, 
compared  with  the  smallest  town,  would  numerically  entitle 
them  to,  a  very  numerous  body  must  be  the  consequence,  in  any 
large  State.  Five  hundred  members,  I  understand,  may  now  be 
constitutionally  elected  to  the  House  of  Representatives;  the 
very  statement  of  which  number  shows  the  necessity  of  reduc- 
tion. I  agree,  Sir,  that  this  is  a  very  dimcult  subject.  Here  are 
three  hundred  towns  all  possessing  the  right  of  representation ; 
and  representation  by  towns  is  an  ancient  habit  of  the  people. 
For  one,  I  am  disposed  to  preserve  this  mode,  so  far  as  may  be 
practicable.  There  is  always  an  advantage  in  making  the  revis- 
ions of  the  fundamental  law,  which  circumstances  may  render 
necessary,  in  a  manner  which  does  no  violence  to  ancient  habits 
and  established  rules.  I  prefer,  therefore,  a  representation  by 
towns,  even  though  it  should  necessarily  be  somewhat  numer- 
ous, to  a  division  of  the  State  into  new  districts,  the  parts  of 
which  might  have  little  natural  connection  or  little  actual  inter- 
course with  one  another.  But  I  ground  my  opinion  in  this  re- 
spect on  fitness  and  expediency,  and  the  sentiments  of  the 
people ;  not  on  absolute  right.  The  town  corporations,  simply 
as  such,  cannot  be  said  to  have  any  right  to  representation  ;  ex- 
cept so  far  as  the  constitution  creates  such  right.  And  this  I 
apprehend  to  be  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  of  the  honorable 
member  from  Worcester.  He  contends,  that  the  smallest  town 
has  a  right  to  its  representative.  This  is  true ;  but  the  largest 
town  (Boston)  has  a  right  also  to  fifty.  These  rights  are  pre- 
cisely equal.  They  stand  on  the  same  ground,  that  is,  on  the 
provisions  of  the  existing  constitution.  The  honorable  member 
thinks  it  quite  just  to  reduce  the  right  of  the  large  town  from 
fifty  to  ten,  and  yet  that  there  is  no  power  to  affect  the  right  of 
the  small  town,  either  by  uniting  it  with  another  small  town 
for  the  choice  of  a  representative,  or  otherwise.  I  do  not  assent 
to  that  opinion.  If  it  be  right  to  take  away  half  or  three  fourths 
of  the  representation  of  the  large  towns,  it  cannot  be  right  to 
leave  that  of  the  small  towns  undiminished.  The  report  of  the 
committee  proposes  that  these  small  towns  shall  elect  a  member 
every  other  year,  half  of  them  sending  one  year,  and  half  the 
next;  or  else  that  two  small  towns  shall  unite  and  send  one 
member  every  year.  There  is  something  apparently  irregular 
nd  anomalous  in  sending  a  member  every  other  year,  vet,  per- 


22  CONSTITUTION   OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

haps,  it  is  no  great  departure  from  former  habits ;  because  these 
small  towns,  being  by  the  present  constitution  compelled  to  pay 
their  own  members,  have  not  ordinarily  sent  them  oftener,  on 
the  average,  than  once  in  two  years. 

The  honorable  member  from  Worcester  founds  his  argument 
on  the  right  of  town  corporations,  as  such,  to  be  represented  in 
the  legislature.  If  he  only  mean  that  right  which  the  constitu- 
tion at  present  secures,  his  observation  is  true,  while  the  consti- 
tution remains  unaltered.  But  if  he  intend  to  say  that  such 
right  exists  prior  to  the  constitution,  and  independent  of  it,  I 
ask,  Whence  is  it  derived?  Representation  of  the  people  has 
heretofore  been  by  towns,  because  such  a  mode  has  been  thought 
convenient.  Still  it  has  been  the  representation  of  the  people. 
It  is  no  corporate  right,  to  partake  in  the  sovereign  power  and 
form  part  of  the  legislature.  To  establish  this  right,  as  a  cor- 
porate right,  the  gentleman  has  enumerated  the  duties  of  the 
town  corporation ;  such  as  the  maintenance  of  public  worship, 
public  schools,  and  public  highways ;  and  insists  that  the  per- 
formance of  these  duties  gives  the  town  a  right  to  a  representa- 
tive in  the  legislature.  But  I  would  ask,  Sir,  what  possible 
ground  there  is  for  this  argument.  The  burden  of  these  duties 
falls  not  on  any  corporate  funds  belonging  to  the  towns,  but  on 
the  people,  under  assessments  made  on  them  individually,  in 
their  town  meetings.  As  distinct  from  their  individual  inhabit- 
ants, the  towns  have  no  interest  in  these  affairs.  These  duties 
are  imposed  by  general  laws ;  they  are  to  be  performed  by  the 
people,  and  if  the  people  are  represented  in  the  making  of  these 
laws,  the  object  is  answered,  whether  they  should  be  represented 
in  one  mode  or  another. 

But,  farther,  Sir,  are  these  municipal  duties  rendered  to  the 
State,  or  are  they  not  rather  performed  by  the  people  of  the 
towns  for  their  own  benefit  ?  The  general  treasury  derives  no 
supplies  from  all  these  contributions.  If  the  towns  maintain 
religious  instruction,  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  their  own  inhabitants  : 
if  they  support  schools,  it  is  for  the  education  of  the  children  of 
then*  inhabitants ;  and  if  they  maintain  roads  and  bridges,  it  is 
also  for  their  own  convenience.  And  therefore,  Sir,  although  I 
repeat  that  for  reasons  of  expediency  I  am  in  favor  of  maintain- 
ing town  representation,  as  far  as  it  can  be  done  with  a  proper 
regard  to  equality  of  representation,  I  entirely  disagree  to  the 


BASIS  OF  THE  SENATE.  23 

notion,  that  every  town  has  a  right,  which  an  alteration  of  the 
constitution  cannot  divest,  if  the  general  good  require  such  alter- 
ation, to  have  a  representative  in  the  legislature. 

The  honorable  member  has  declared  that  we  are  about  to 
disfranchise  corporations,  and  destroy  chartered  rights.  He  pro- 
nounces this  system  of  representation  an  outrage,  and  declares 
that  we  are  forging  chains  and  fetters  for  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts. "  Chains  and  fetters  !  "  This  convention  of  delegates, 
chosen  by  the  people  within  this  month,  and  going  back  to  the 
people,  divested  of  all  power,  within  another  month,  yet  occupy- 
ing their  span  of  time  here,  in  forging  chains  and  fetters  for 
themselves  and  their  constituents !  "  Chains  and  fetters ! "  A 
popular  assembly  of  four  hundred  men  combining  to  fabricate 
these  manacles  for  the  people,  and  nobody  but  the  honora- 
ble member  from  Worcester  with  sagacity  enough  to  detect 
the  horrible  conspiracy,  or  honesty  enough  to  disclose  it! 
"  Chains  and  fetters ! "  An  assembly  most  variously  composed, 
—  men  of  all  professions  and  all  parties,  of  different  ages,  hab- 
its, and  associations,  —  all  freely  and  recently  chosen  by  their 
towns  and  districts ;  yet  this  assembly,  in  one  short  month,  con- 
triving to  fetter  and  enslave  itself  and  its  constituents!  Sir, 
there  are  some  things  too  extravagant  for  the  ornament  and 
decoration  of  oratory ;  some  things  too  excessive,  even  for  the 
fictions  of  poetry ;  and  I  am  persuaded  that  a  little  reflection 
would  satisfy  the  honorable  member,  that,  when  he  speaks  of 
this  assembly  as  committing  outrages  on  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  as  forging  chains  and  fetters  for  their  subjugation,  he 
does  as  great  injustice  to  his  own  character  as  a  correct  and 
manly  debater,  as  he  does  to  the  motives  and  the  intelligence  of 
this  body. 

I  do  not  doubt,  Sir,  that  some  inequality  exists,  in  the  mode  of 
representatives  proposed  by  the  committee.  A  precise  and  exact 
equality  is  not  attainable,  in  any  mode.  Look  to  the  gentleman's 
own  proposition.  By  that,  Essex,  with  twenty  thousand  inhab- 
itants more  than  Worcester,  would  have  twenty  representatives 
less.  Suffolk,  which,  according  to  nun^rs,  would  be  entitled  to 
twenty,  would  have,  if  I  mistake  not,  eignt  or  nine  only.  What- 
ever else,  Sir,  this  proposition  may  be  a  specimen  of,  it  is  hard- 
ly a  specimen  of  equality.  As  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 
my  view  of  the  subject  is  this.  Under  the  present  constitution, 


24  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

the  towns  have  all  a  right  to  send  representatives  to  the  legisla- 
ture, in  a  certain  fixed  proportion  to  their  numbers.  It  has  been 
found  that  the  full  exercise  of  this  right  fills  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives with  too  numerous  a  body.  What,  then,  is  to  be 
done  ?  Why,  Sir,  the  delegates  of  the  towns  are  here  assem- 
bled, to  agree,  mutually,  on  some  reasonable  mode  of  reduction. 
Now,  Sir,  it  is  not  for  one  party  to  stand  sternly  on  its  right, 
and  demand  all  the  concession  from  another.  As  to  right,  all 
are  equal.  The  right  which  Hull  possesses  to  send  one,  is  the 
same  as  the  right  of  Boston  to  send  fifty.  Mutual  concession 
and  accommodation,  therefore,  can  alone  accomplish  the  pur- 
pose of  our  meeting.  If  Boston  consents,  instead  of  fifty,  to 
send  but  twelve  or  fifteen,  the  small  towns  must  consent,  either 
to  be  united,  in  the  choice  of  their  representatives,  with  other 
small  towns,  or  to  send  a  representative  less  frequently  than 
every  year;  or  to  have  an  option  to  do  one  or  the  other 
of  these,  hereafter,  as  shall  be  found  most  convenient.  This 
is  what  the  report  of  the  committee  proposes,  and,  as  far  as 
we  have  yet  learned,  a  great  majority  of  the  delegates  from 
small  towns  approve  the  plan.  I  am  willing,  therefore,  to  vote 
for  this  part  of  the  report  of  the  committee;  thinking  it  as 
just  and  fan-  a  representation,  and  as  much  reduced  in  point 
of  numbers,  as  can  be  reasonably  hoped  for,  without  giving  up 
entirely  the  system  of  representation  by  towns.  It  is  to  be  con- 
sidered also,  that,  according  to  the  report  of  the  committee, 
the  pay  of  the  members  is  to  be  out  of  the  public  treasury. 
Every  body  must  see  how  this  will  operate  on  the  large  towns. 
Boston,  for  example,  with  its  twelve  or  fourteen  members,  will 
pay  for  fifty.  Be  it  so ;  it  is  incident  to  its  property,  and  not  at 
all  an  injustice,  if  proper  weight  be  given  to  that  property,  and 
proper  provision  be  made  for  its  security. 

To  recur,  again,  to  the  subject  of  the  Senate.  There  is  one 
remark,  made  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  of  which  I  wish 
to  take  notice.  It  is  said,  that,  if  the  principle  of  representa- 
tion in  the  Senate  by  property  be  correct,  it  ought  to  be  car- 
ried through ;  whereas,  it  is  limited  and  restrained  by  a  provis- 
ion mat  no  district  shall  be  entitled  to  more  than  six  Senators. 
But  this  is  a  prohibition  on  the  making  of  great  districts,  gen- 
erally; not  merely  a  limitation  of  the  effect  of  the  property 
principle.  It  prevents  great  districts  from  being  made  where 


BASIS  OF  THE    SENATE.  25 

the  valuation  is  small,  as  well  as  where  it  is  large.  Were  it  not 
for  this,  or  some  similar  prohibition,  Worcester  and  Hampshire 
might  have  been  joined,  under  the  present  constitution,  and  have 
sent,  perhaps,  ten  or  twelve  Senators.  The  limitation  is  a  gen- 
eral one,  introduced  for  general  purposes ;  and  if  in  a  particular 
instance  it  bears  hard  on  any  county,  this  should  be  regarded  as 
an  evil  incident  to  a  good  and  salutary  rule,  and  ought  to  be, 
as  I  doubt  not  it  will  be,  quietly  borne. 

I  forbear,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  take  notice  of  many  minor  objec- 
tions to  the  report  of  the  committee.  The  defence  of  that  report, 
especially  in  its  details,  properly  belongs  to  other  and  abler 
hands.  My  purpose  in  addressing  you  was,  simply,  to  consider 
the  propriety  of  providing  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature  a 
real  check  upon  the  other.  And  as  I  look  upon  that  princi- 
ple to  be  of  the  highest  practical  importance,  and  as  it  has 
seemed  to  me  that  the  doctrines  contended  for  would  go  to  sub- 
vert it,  I  hope  I  may  be  pardoned  for  detaining  the  committee 
so  long.  + 


VOL.    Ill 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  JUDICIARY.1 


REGRETS  are  vain  for  what  is  past ;  yet  I  hardly  know  how  it 
has  been  thought  to  be  a  regular  course  of  proceeding  to  go  into 
committee  on  this  subject,  before  taking  up  the  several  proposi- 
tions which  now  await  their  final  readings  on  the  president's 
table.  The  consequence  is,  that  this  question  comes  on  by  sur- 
prise. The  chairman  of  the  select  committee  is  not  present; 
many  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of  the  convention  are 
personally  so  situated  as  not  to  be  willing  to  take  part  in  the 
debate,  and  the  first  law  officer  of  the  government,  a  member  of 
the  committee,  happens  at  this  moment  to  be  in  a  place  (the 
chair  of  the  committee  of  the  whole)  which  deprives  us  of  the 
benefit  of  his  observations.  Under  these  circumstances,  I  had 
hoped  the  committee  would  rise.  It  has,  however,  been  deter- 
mined otherwise,  and  I  must  therefore  beg  their  indulgence 
while  I  make  a  few  observations. 

As  the  constitution  now  stands,  all  judges  are  liable  to  be  re- 
moved from  office  by  the  governor,  with  the  consent  of  the 
council,  on  the  address  of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature.  It 
is  not  made  necessary  that  the  two  houses  should  give  any  rea- 
sons for  their  address,  or  that  the  judge  should  have  an  opportu- 
nity to  be  heard.  I  look  upon  this  as  against  common  right,  as 
well  as  repugnant  to  the  general  principles  of  the  government. 
The  commission  of  the  judge  purports  to  be,  on  the  face  of  it, 
during  good  behavior.  He  has  an  interest  in  his  office.  To 
give  an  authority  to  the  legislature  to  deprive  him  of  it,  with- 
out trial  or  accusation,  is  manifestly  to  make  the  judges  depend- 
ent on  the  legislature. 

*  Remarks  made  on  the  30th  of  December,  1820,  in  the  Convention,  upon  a 
Resolution  to  make  Judicial  Officers  removable  by  the  Governor  and  Council  upon 
the  Address  of  two  thirds  (instead  of  a  majority)  of  each  Branch  of  the  Legislature 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  JUDICIARY.  27 

The  question  is  not  what  the  legislature  probably  will  do,  but 
what  they  may  do.  If  the  judges,  in  fact,  hold  their  offices  only 
so  long  as  the  legislature  see  fit,  then  it  is  vain  and  illusory 
to  say  that  the  judges  are  independent  men,  incapable  of  being 
influenced  by  hbpe  or  by  fear.  The  tenure  of  their  office  is  not 
independent  The  general  theory  and  principle  of  the  govern- 
ment are  broken  in  upon,  by  giving  the  legislature  this  power. 
The  departments  of  government  are  not  equal,  coordinate,  and 
independent,  while  one  is  thus  at  the  mercy  of  the  others.  What 
would  be  said  of  a  proposition  to  authorize  the  governor  or  judges 
to  remove  a  senator  or  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
from  office  ?  And  yet,  the  general  theory  of  the  constitution  is 
to  make  the  judges  as  independent  as  members  of  the  legislature. 

I  know  not  whether  a  greater  improvement  has  been  made  in 
government  than  to  separate  the  judiciary  from  the  executive 
and  legislative  branches,  and  to  provide  for  the  decision  of  pri- 
vate rights  in  a  manner  wholly  uninfluenced  by  reasons  of  state, 
or  considerations  of  party  or  of  policy.  It  is  the  glory  of  the 
British  constitution  to  have  led  in  the  establishment  of  this  most 
important  principle.  It  did  not  exist  in  England  before  the 
Revolution  of  1688,  and  its  introduction  has  seemed  to  give  a 
new  character  to  the  tribunals.  It  is  not  necessary  to  state  the 
evils  which  had  been  experienced  in  that  country  from  depend- 
ent and  timeserving  judges.  In  matters  of  mere  property,  in 
causes  of  no  political  or  public  bearing,  they  might  perhaps  be 
safely  trusted ;  but  in  great  questions  concerning  public  liberty 
or  the  rights  of  the  subject,  they  were,  in  too  many  cases,  not  fit 
to  be  trusted  at  all.  Who  would  now  quote  Scroggs,  or  Saun- 
ders,  or  Jeffreys,  on  a  question  concerning  the  right  of  the  habeas 
corpus,  or  the  right  of  suffrage,  or  the  liberty  of  the  press,  or  any 
other  subject  closely  connected  with  political  freedom  ?  Yet  on 
all  these  subjects  the  sentiments  of  the  English  judges  since  the 
Revolution,  of  Somers,  Holt,  Ireby,  Jekyl,  and  others*  like  them, 
are,  in  general,  favorable  to  civil  liberty,  and  receive  and  deserve 
great  attention  whenever  referred  to.  Indeed,  Massachusetts 
herself  knows,  by  her  own  history,  what  is  to  be  expected  from 
dependent  judges.  Her  own  charter  was  declared  forfeited, 
without  a  hearing,  in  a  court  where  such  judges  sat. 

When  Charles  the  Second,  and  his  brother  after  him,  at- 
tempted the  destruction  of  chartered  rights,  both  in  the  kingdom 


28  CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

and  out  of  it,  the  mode  was  by  judgments  obtained  in  the 
courts.  It  is  well  known,  that  after  the  prosecution  against  the 
city  of  London  was  commenced,  and  while  it  was  pending,  the 
judges  were  changed;  and  Saunders,  who  had  been  consulted 
on  the  occasion,  and  had  advised  the  proceeding*  on  the  part  of 
the  crown,  was  made  chief  justice  for  the  very  purpose  of  giving 
a  judgment  in  favor  of  the  crown  ;  his  predecessor  being  removed 
to  make  room  for  him.  But  since  the  Revolution  of  1688,  an 
entire  new  character  in  this  respect  has  been  given  to  English 
judicature.  The  judges  have  been  made  independent,  and  the 
benefit  has  been  widely  and  deeply  felt.  A  similar  improvement 
seems  to  have  made  its  way  into  Scotland.  Before  the  union 
of  the  kingdoms,  it  cannot  be  said  that  there  was  any  judicial 
independence  in  Scotland ;  and  the  highest  names  in  Scottish 
jurisprudence  have  been  charged  with  being  under  influences 
which  could  not,  in  modern  times,  be  endured.  It  is  even  said, 
that  the  practice  of  entails  did  not  extensively  exist  in  Scotland 
till  about  the  time  of  the  reigns  of  the  last  princes  of  the  Stuart 
race,  and  that  it  was  then  introduced  to  guard  against  unjust 
forfeitures.  It  is  strange,  indeed,  that  this  should  happen  at  so 
late  a  period,  and  that  a  most  unnatural  and  artificial  state  of 
property  should  be  owing  to  the  fear  of  dependent  judicatures. 
I  might  add  here,  that  the  heritable  jurisdictions,  the  greatest 
almost  of  all  evils  connected  with  the  administration  of  justice, 
were  not  abolished  in  Scotland  till  about  the  middle  of  the  last 
century ;  so  slowly  does  improvement  make  progress  when  op- 
posed by  ignorance,  prejudice,  or  interest. 

In  our  own  country,  it  was  for  years  a  topic  of  complaint, 
before  the  Revolution,  that  justice  was  administered,  in  some  of 
the  Colonies,  by  judges  dependent  on  the  British  crown.  The 
Declaration  of  Independence  itself  puts  forth  this  as  a  promi- 
nent grievance,  among  those  which  justified  the  Revolution. 
The  British  king,  it  declares,  "  had  made  judges  dependent  on 
his  own  will  alone,  for  the  tenure  of  their  offices."  It  was  there- 
fore to  be  expected,  that,  in  establishing  their  own  governments, 
this  important  point  of  the  independence  of  the  judicial  power 
would  be  regarded  by  the  States.  Some  of  them  have  made 
greater  and  others  less  provision  on  this  subject;  the  more  recent 
constitutions,  I  believe,  being  generally  framed  with  the  best 
guards  for  judicial  independence. 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  JUDICIARY.  J& 

Those  who  oppose  any  additional  security  for  the  tenure  of 
judicial  office  have  pressed  to  know  what  evil  has  been  experi- 
enced, what  injury  has  arisen,  from  the  constitution  as  it  is. 
Perhaps  none ;  but  if  evils  probably  may  arise,  the  question 
is,  whether  the  subject  be  not  so  important  as  to  render  it  pru- 
dent to  guard  against  that  evil.  If  evil  do  arise,  we  may  be 
sure  it  will  be  a  great  evil ;  if  this  power  should  happen  to  be 
abused,  the  consequences  would  be  most  mischievous.  It  is 
not  a  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  we  have  as  yet  felt  no  in- 
convenience. We  are  bound  to  look  to  probable  future  events. 
We  have,  too,  the  experience  of  other  States.  Connecticut,  hav 
ing  had  judges  appointed  annually,  from  the  time  of  Charles 
the  Second,  in  the  recent  alteration  of  her  constitution  has  pro- 
vided, that  hereafter  they  shall  hold  their  office  during  good 
behavior,  subject  to  removal  on  the  address  of  two  thirds  of  each 
house  of  the  legislature.  In  Pennsylvania,  the  judges  rnay  be 
removed,  "  for  any  reasonable  cause,"  on  the  address  of  two 
thirds  of  the  two  houses.  In  some  of  the  States,  three  fourths 
of  each  house  are  required.  The  new  constitution  of  Maine  has 
a  provision,  with  which  I  should  be  content;  which  is,  that  no 
judge  shall  be  liable  to  be  removed  by  the  legislature  till  the 
matter  of  his  accusation  has  been  made  "known  to  him,  and  he 
has  had  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  in  his  defence.  This 
seems  no  more  than  common  justice ;  and  yet  it  is  much  greater 
than  any  security  which  at  present  exists  in  the  constitution  of 
this  Commonwealth.  It  will  be  found,  if  I  mistake  not,  that 
there  are  not  more  than  two  or  three,  out  of  all  the  States,  which 
have  left  the  tenure  of  judicial  office  at  the  entire  pleasure  of  the 
legislature. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that  one  great  object  of  written  constitu- 
tions is  to  keep  the  departments  of  government  as  distinct  as 
possible ;  and  for  this  purpose  to  impose  restraints  designed  to 
have  that  effect.  And  it  is  equally  true,  that  there  is  no  depart- 
ment on  which  it  is  more  necessary  to  impose  restraints  than 
the  legislature.  The  tendency  of  things  is  almost  always  to 
augment  the  power  of  that  department,  in  its  relation  to  the 
judiciary.  The  judiciary  is  composed  of  few  persons,  and  those 
not  such  as  mix  habitually  in  the  pursuits  and  objects  which 
most  engage  public  men.  They  are  not,  or  never  should  be, 
political  men.  They  have  often  unpleasant  duties  to  perform 
3* 


30  CONSTITUTION   OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

and  their  conduct  is  often  liable  to  be  canvassed  and  censured, 
where  their  reasons  for  it  are  not  known,  or  cannot  be  under- 
stood. The  legislature  holds  the  public  purse.  It  fixes  the  com- 
pensation of  all  other  departments;  it  applies,  as  well  as  i discs, 
all  revenue.  It  is  a  numerous  body,  and  necessarily  carries  along 
with  it  a  great  force  of  public  opinion.  Its  members  are  public 
men,  in  constant  contact  with  one  another,  and  with  their  con- 
stituents. It  would  seem  to  be  plain  enough,  that,  without  con- 
stitutional provisions  which  should  be  fixed  and  certain,  such  a 
department,  in  case  of  excitement,  would  be  able  to  encroach 
on  the  judiciary.  Therefore  is  it,  that  a  security  of  judicial 
independence  becomes  necessary ;  and  the  question  is,  whether 
that  independence  be  at  present  sufficiently  secured. 

The  constitution  being  the  supreme  law,  it  follows  of  course, 
that  every  act  of  the  legislature,  contrary  to  that  law,  must  be 
void.  But  who  shall  decide  this  question  ?  Shall  the  legislature 
itself  decide  it  ?  If  so,  then  the  constitution  ceases  to  be  a  legal, 
and  becomes  only  a  moral  restraint  on  the  legislature.  If  they, 
and  they  only,  are  to  judge  whether  their  acts  be  conformable  to 
the  constitution,  then  the  constitution  is  admonitory  or  advisory 
only ;  not  legally  binding ;  because,  if  the  construction  of  it  rest 
wholly  with  them,  their  discretion,  in  particular  cases,  may  be  in 
favor  of  very  erroneous  and  dangerous  constructions.  Hence 
the  courts  of  law,  necessarily,  when  the  case  arises,  must  decide 
upon  the  validity  of  particular  acts.  These  cases  are  rare,  at 
least  in  this  Commonwealth ;  but  they  would  probably  be  less 
so,  if  the  character  of  the  judiciary  were  less  respectable  than 
it  is. 

It  is  the  theory  and  plan  of  the  constitution  to  restrain  the 
legislature,  as  well  as  other  departments,  and  to  subject  their 
acts  to  judicial  decision,  whenever  it  appears  that  such  acts 
infringe  constitutional  limits.  Without  this  check,  no  certain 
limitation  could  exist  on  the  exercise  of  legislative  power.  The 
constitution,  for  example,  declares,  that  the  legislature  shall  not 
suspend  the  benefit  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  except  under 
certain  limitations.  If  a  law  should  happen  to  be  passed  re- 
straining personal  liberty,  and  an  individual,  feeling  oppressed 
by  it,  should  apply  for  his  habeas  corpus,  must  not  the  judges 
decide  what  is  the  benefit  of  habeas  corpus  intended  by  the 
constitution,  what  it  is  to  suspend  it,  and  whether  the  acts  of 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  JUDICIARY.  31 

the  legislature  do,  in  the  given  case,  conform  to  the  constitu- 
tion ?  All  these  questions  would  of  course  arise.  The  judge  is 
bound  by  his  oath  to  decide  according  to  law.  The  constitution 
is  the  supreme  law.  Any  act  of  the  legislature,  therefore,  incon- 
sistent with  that  supreme  law,  must  yield  to  it ;  and  any  judge, 
seeing  this  inconsistency,  and  yet  giving  effect  to  the  law, 
would  violate  both  his  duty  and  his  oath.  But  it  is  evident  that 
this  power,  to  be  useful,  must  be  lodged  in  independent  hands. 
If  the  legislature  may  remove  judges  at  pleasure,  assigning  no 
cause  for  such  removal,  of  course  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that 
they  would  often  find  decisions  against  the  constitutionality  of 
their  own  acts.  If  the  legislature  should,  unhappily,  be  in  a 
temper  to  do  a  violent  thing,  it  would  probably  take  care  to  see 
that  the  bench  of  justice  was  so  constituted  as  to  agree  with  it 
in  opinion. 

It  is  unpleasant  to  allude  to  other  States  for  negative  exam- 
ples ;  yet,  if  any  one  were  inclined  to  the  inquiry,  it  might  be 
found  that  cases  had  happened  in  which  laws,  known  to  be  at 
best  very  questionable  as  to  their  consistency  with  the  constitu- 
tion, had  been  passed ;  and  at  the  same  session,  effectual  meas- 
ures taken,  under  the  power  of  removal  by  address,  to  create  a 
new  bench.  Such  a  coincidence  might  be  accidental ;  but  the 
frequent  happening  of  such  accidents  would  destroy  the  balance 
of  a  free  government.  The  history  of  all  the  States,  I  believe, 
shows  the  necessity  of  settled  limits  to  legislative  power.  There 
are  reasons,  entirely  consistent  with  upright  and  patriotic  mo- 
tives, which,  nevertheless,  evince  the  danger  of  legislative  en- 
croachments. The  subject  is  fully  treated  by  Mr.  Madison,  in 
some  numbers  of  the  Federalist,  which  well  deserve  the  consid- 
eration of  the  convention. 

There  is  nothing,  after  ah1,  so  important  to  individuals  as  the 
upright  administration  of  justice.  This  comes  home  to  every 
man  ;  life,  liberty,  reputation,  property,  all  depend  on  this.  No 
government  does  its  duty  to  the  people,  which  does  not  make 
ample  and  stable  provision  for  the  exercise  of  this  part  of  its 
powers.  Nor  is  it  enough,  that  there  are  courts  which  will  deal 
justly  with  mere  private  questions.  We  look  to  the  judicial  tri- 
bunal for  protection  against  illegal  or  unconstitutional  acts, 
from  whatever  quarter  they  may  proceed.  The  courts  of  law,  in- 
dependent judges,  and  enlightened  juries,  are  citadels  of  popular 


32  CONSTITUTION    OF   MASSACHUSETTS. 

liberty,  as  well  as  temples  of  private  justice.  The  most  essen- 
tial rights  connected  with  political  liberty  are  there  canvassed, 
discussed,  and  maintained ;  and  if  it  should  at  any  time  so  hap- 
pen that  these  rights  should  be  invaded,  there  is  no  remedy  but 
a  reliance  on  the  courts  to  protect  and  vindicate  them.  There 
is  danger,  also,  that  legislative  bodies  will  sometimes  pass  laws 
interfering  with  other  private  rights  than  those  connected  with 
political  liberty.  Individuals  are  too  apt  to  apply  to  the  legis- 
lative power  to  interfere  with  private  cases  or  private  proper- 
ty ;  and  such  applications  sometimes  meet  with  favor  and  sup- 
port. There  would  be  no  security,  if  these  interferences  were 
not  subject  to  some  subsequent  constitutional  revision,  where  all 
parties  could  be  heard,  and  justice  be  administered  according  to 
the  standing  laws. 

These  considerations  are  among  those  which,  in  my  opinion, 
render  an  independent  judiciary  equally  essential  to  the  preser- 
vation of  private  rights  and  public  liberty.  I  lament  the  neces- 
sity of  deciding  this  question  at  the  present  moment;  and 
should  hope,  if  such  immediate  decision  were  not  demanded, 
that  some  modification  of  this  report  might  prove  acceptable  to 
the  committee,  since,  in  my  judgment,  some  provision  beyond 
what  exists  in  the  present  constitution  is  necessary. 


SPEECHES    IN   CONGRESS. 


BANK  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES.' 


ON  the  2d  of  January,  1815,  the  bill  to  incorporate  a  bank  being 
under  consideration,  Mr.  Webster  moved  that  it  be  recommitted  to  a  se- 
lect committee,  with  instructions  to  make  the  following  alterations,  to 
wit :  — 

1.  To  reduce  the  capital  to  twenty-five  millions,  with  liberty  to  the 
government  to  subscribe  on  its  own  account  five  millions. 

2.  To  strike  out  the  thirteenth  section. 

3.  To  strike  out  so  much  of  said  bill  as  makes  it  obligatory  on  the 
bank  to  lend  money  to  government. 

4.  To  introduce  a  section  providing,  that  if  the  bank  do  not  com- 
mence its  operations  within  the  space  of months,  from  the  day  of 

the  passing  of  the  act,  the  charter  shall  thereby  be  forfeited. 

5.  To  insert  a  section  allowing  interest  at  the  rate  of per  cent. 

on  any  bill  or  note  of  the  bank,  of  which  payment  shall  have  been  duly 
demanded,  according  to  its  tenor,  and  refused  ;  and  to  inflict  penalties 
on   any  directors  who  shall  issue  any  bills  or  notes  during  any  suspen- 
sion of  specie  payment  at  the  bank. 

6.  To  provide  that  the  said  twenty-five  millions  of  capital  stock  shall 
be  composed  of  five  millions  of  specie,  and  twenty  millions  of  any  of 
the  stocks  of  the  United  States  bearing  an  interest  of  six  per  cent.,  or  of 
treasury-notes. 

7.  To  strike  out  of  the  bill  that  part  of  it  which  restrains  the  bank  from 
selling  its  stock  during  the  war. 

In  support  of  this  motion  the  following  speech  was  delivered.  The 
motion  did  not  prevail,  but  the  bill  itself  was  rejected  the  same  day  on 
the  third  reading.  Some  of  the  main  principles  of  these  instructions 
were  incorporated  into  the  charter  of  the  late  bank,  when  that  char- 
ter was  granted,  the  following  year  ;  especially  those  which  were  more 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  2d  of  January,  1815. 


30  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

particularly  designed  to  insure  the  payment  of  the  notes  of  the  bank  in 
specie,  at  all  times,  on  demand. 

HOWEVER  the  House  may  dispose  of  the  motion  before  it,  I 
do  not  regret  that  it  has  been  made.  One  object  intended  by  it, 
at  least,  is  accomplished.  It  presents  a  choice,  and  it  shows 
tha;  the  opposition  which  exists  to  the  bill  in  its  present  state  is 
not  an  undistinguishing  hostility  to  whatever  may  be  proposed 
as  a  national  bank,  but  a  hostility  to  an  institution  of  such  a 
useless  and  dangerous  nature  as  it  is  believed  the  existing  pro- 
visions of  the  bill  would  establish. 

If  the  bill  should  be  recommitted,  and  amended  according  to 
the  instructions  which  I  have  moved,  its  principles  would  be 
materially  changed.  The  capital  of  the  proposed  bank  will  be 
reduced  from  fifty  to  thirty  millions,  and  will  be  composed  of  spe- 
cie and  stocks  in  nearly  the  same  proportions  as  the  capital  of 
the  former  Bank  of  the  United  States.  The  obligation  to  lend 
thirty  millions  of  dollars  to  government,  an  obligation  which 
cannot  be  fulfilled  without  committing  an  act  of  bankruptcy, 
will  be  struck  out.  The  power  to  suspend  the  payment  of  its 
notes  and  bills  will  be  abolished,  and  the  prompt  and  faithful 
execution  of  its  contracts  secured,  as  far  as,  from  the  nature  of 
things,  it  can  be  secured.  The  restriction  on  the  sale  of  its 
stocks  will  be  removed,  and  as  it  is  a  monopoly,  provision  will 
be  made  that,  if  it  should  not  commence  its  operations  in  a  rea- 
sonable time,  the  grant  shall  be  forfeited.  Thus  amended,  the 
bill  would  establish  an  institution  not  unlike  the  last  Bank  of 
the  United  States  in  any  particular  which  is  deemed  material, 
excepting  only  the  legalized  amount  of  capital. 

To  a  bank  of  this  nature  I  should  at  any  time  be  willing  to 
give  my  support,  not  as  a  measure  of  temporary  policy  or  as  an 
expedient  for  relief  from  the  present  poverty  of  the  treasury,  but 
as  an  institution  of  permanent  interest  and  importance,  useful  , 
to  the  government  and  country  at  all  times,  and  most  useful  in 
times  of  commercial  prosperity. 

I  am  sure,  Sir,  that  the  advantages  which  would  at  present 
result  from  any  bank  are  greatly  overrated.  To  look  to  a  bank, 
as  a  source  capable,  not  only  of  affording  a  circulating  medium 
to  the  country,  but  also  of  supplying  the  ways  and  means  of 
carrying  on  the  war,  especially  at  a  time  when  the  country  is 


BANK  OF  THE    UNITED   STATES.  37 

without  commerce,  is  to  expect  much  more  than  ever  will  be 
obtained.  Such  high-wrought  hopes  can  end  only  in  disappoint- 
ment. The  means  of  supporting  an  expensive  war  are  not  of 
quite  so  easy  acquisition.  Banks  are  not  revenue.  They  can- 
not supply  its  place.  They  may  afford  facilities  to  its  collec- 
tion and  distribution.  They  may  furnish  with  convenience 
temporary  loans  to  government,  in  anticipation  of  its  taxes, 
and  render  important  assistance,  in  divers  ways,  to  the  gen- 
eral operation  of  finance.  They  are  useful  to  the  state  in  their 
proper  place  and  sphere,  but  they  are  not  sources  of  national 
income. 

The  streams  of  revenue  must  flow  from  deeper  fountains.  The 
credit  and  circulation  of  bank  paper  are  the  effects  rather  than 
the  causes  of  a  profitable  commerce  and  a  well-ordered  system  of 
finance.  They  are  the  props  of  national  wealth  and  prosperity, 
not  the  foundations  of  them.  Whoever  shall  attempt  to  restore 
the  fallen  credit  of  this  country  by  the  establishment  of  new 
banks,  merely  that  they  may  create  new  paper,  and  that  govern- 
ment may  have  a  chance  of  borrowing  where  it  has  not  bor- 
rowed before,  will  find  himself  miserably  deceived.  It  is  under 
the  influence  of  no  such  vain  hopes  that  I  yield  my  assent  to  the 
establishment  of  a  bank  on  sound  and  proper  principles.  The 
principal  good  I  expect  from  it  is  rather  future  than  present.  I 
do  not  see,  indeed,  that  it  is  likely  to  produce  evil  at  any  time. 
In  times  to  come  it  will,  I  hope,  be  useful.  If  it  were  only  to  be 
harmless,  there  would  be  sufficient  reason  why  it  should  be  sup- 
ported in  preference  to  such  a  contrivance  as  is  now  in  contem- 
plation. 

The  bank  which  will  be  created  by  the  bill,  if  it  should  pass 
in  its  present  form,  is  of  a  most  extraordinary,  and,  as  I  think, 
alarming  nature.  The  capital  is  to  be  fifty  millions  of  dollars; 
five  millions  in  gold  and  silver,  twenty  millions  in  the  public 
debt  created  since  the  war,  ten  millions  in  treasury-notes,  and 
fifteen  millions  to  be  subscribed  by  government  in  stock  to  be 
issued  for  that  purpose.  The  ten  millions  in  treasury-notes, 
when  received  in  payment  of  subscriptions  to  the  bank,  are  to 
be  funded  also*in  United  States  stocks.  The  stock  subscribed 
by  government  on  its  own  account,  and  the  stocks  in  which  the 
treasury-notes  are  to  be  funded,  are  to  be  redeemable  only  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  government.  The  war  stock  will  be  redeemable 

VOL.  m.  4 


38  BANK   OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

according  to  the  terms  upon  which  the  late  loans  have  been 
negotiated. 

The  capital  of  the  bank,  then,  will  be  five  millions  of  specie 
and  forty-five  millions  of  government  stocks.  In  other  words, 
the  bank  will  possess  five  millions  of  dollars  and  the  govern- 
ment will  owe  it  forty-five  millions.  The  bank  is  restrained 
from  selling  this  debt  of  government  during  the  war,  and  govern- 
ment is  excused  from  paying  until  it  shall  see  fit.  The  bank  is 
also  to  be  under  obligation  to  loan  to  government  thirty  millions 
of  dollars  on  demand,  to  be  repaid,  not  when  the  convenience 
or  necessity  of  the  bank  may  require,  but  when  debts  due  to  the 
bank  from  government  are  paid ;  that  is,  when  it  shall  be  the 
good  pleasure  of  government.  This  sum  of  thirty  millions  is  to 
supply  the  necessities  of  government,  and  to  supersede  the  occa- 
sion of  other  loans.  This  loan  will  doubtless  be  made  on  the 
first  day  of  the  existence  of  the  bank,  because  the  public  wants 
can  admit  of  no  delay.  Its  condition,  then,  will  be,  that  it  has 
five  millions  of  specie,  if  it  has  been  able  to  obtain  so  much, 
and  a  debt  of  seventy-five  millions,  no  part  of  which  it  can  either 
sell  or  call  in,  due  to  it  from  government. 

The  loan  of  thirty  millions  to  government  can  only  be  made 
by  an  immediate  issue  of  bills  to  that  amount.  If  these  bills 
should  return,  the  bank  will  not  be  able  to  pay  them.  This  is  cer- 
tain ;  and  to  remedy  this  inconvenience,  power  is  given  to  the 
directors,  by  the  act,  to  suspend,  at  their  own  discretion,  the  pay- 
ment of  their  notes  until  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall 
otherwise  order.  The  President  will  give  no  such  order,  because 
the  necessities  of  government  will  compel  it  to  draw  on  the 
bank  till  the  bank  becomes  as  necessitous  as  itself.  Indeed, 
whatever  orders  may  be  given  or  withheld,  it  will  be  utterly  im- 
possible for  the  bank  to  pay  its  notes.  No  such  thing  is  expect- 
ed from  it.  The  first  note  it  issues  will  be  dishonored  on  its  re- 
turn, and  yet  it  will  continue  to  pour  out  its  paper  so  long  as 
government  can  apply  it  in  any  degree  to  its  purposes. 

What  sort  of  an  institution,  Sir,  is  this  ?  It  looks  less  like  a 
bank  than  a  department  of  government.  It  will  be  properly  the 
paper-money  department.  Its  capital  is  government  debts ;  the 
amount  of  its  issues  will  depend  on  government  necessities; 
government,  in  effect,  absolves  itself  from  its  own  debts  to  the 
oank,  and,  by  way  of  compensation,  absolves  the  bank  from  its 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  39 

own  contracts  with  others.  This  is,  indeed,  a  wonderful  scheme 
of  finance.  The  government  is  to  grow  rich,  because  it  is  to 
borrow  without,  the  obligation  of  repaying,  and  is  to  borrow  of  a 
bank  which  issues  paper  without  liability  to  redeem  it.  If  this 
bank,  like  other  institutions  which  dull  and  plodding  common 
sense  has  erected,  were  to  pay  its  debts,  it  must  have  some  lim- 
its to  its  issues  of  paper,  and  therefore  there  would  be  a  point 
beyond  which  it  could  not  make  loans  to  government.  This 
would  fall  short  of  the  wishes  of  the  contrivers  of  this  system. 
They  provide  for  an  unlimited  issue  of  paper  in  an  entire  ex- 
emption from  payment.  They  found  their  bank,  in  the  first 
place,  on  the  discredit  of  government,  and  then  hope  to  enrich 
government  out  of  the  insolvency  of  their  bank.  With  them, 
poverty  itself  is  the  main  source  of  supply,  and  bankruptcy  a 
mine  of  inexhaustible  treasure.  They  trust  not  in  the  ability  of 
the  bank,  but  in  its  beggary ;  not  in  gold  and  silver  collected  in 
its  vaults,  to  pay  its  debts,  and  fulfil  its  promises,  but  in  its  locks 
and  bars,  provided  by  statute,  to  fasten  its  doors  against  the  so- 
licitations and  clamors  of  importunate  creditors.  Such  an  insti- 
tution, they  flatter  themselves,  will  not  only  be  able  to  sustain 
itself,  but  to  buoy  up  the  sinking  credit  of  the  government.  A 
bank  which  does  not  pay  is  to  guarantee  the  engagements  of  a 
government  which  does  not  pay  !  "  John  Doe  is  to  become  se- 
curity for  Richard  Roe."  Thus  the  empty  vaults  of  the  treasu- 
ry are  to  be  filled  from  the  equally  empty  vaults  of  the  bank, 
and  the  ingenious  invention  of  a  partnership  between  insolvents 
is  to  restore  and  reestablish  the  credit  of  both. 

Sir,  I  can  view  this  only  as  a  system  of  rank  speculation  and 
enormous  mischief.  Nothing  in  our  condition  is  worse,  in  my 
opinion,  than  the  inclination  of  government  to  throw  itself  upon 
such  desperate  courses.  If  we  are  to  be  saved,  it  is  not  to  be 
by  such  means.  If  public  credit  is  to  be  restored,  this  is  not  one 
of  the  measures  that  will  help  to  restore  it.  If  the  treasury  is 
exhausted,  this  bank  will  not  fill  it  with  any  thing  valuable.  If 
a  safe  circulating  medium  be  wanted  for  the  community,  it  will 
not  be  found  in  the  paper  of  such  a  corporation. 

I  wish,  Sir,  that  those  who  imagine  that  these  objects,  or  any 
of  them,  will  be  effected  by  such  a  bank  as  this,  would  describe 
the  manner  in  which  they  expect  it  to  be  done.  What  is  the 
process  which  is  to  produce  these  results  ?  If  it  is  perceived,  it 


40  BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

can  be  described.  The  bank  will  not  operate  either  by  miracle 
or  magic.  Whoever  expects  any  good  from  it  ought  to  be  able 
to  tell  us  in  what  way  that  good  is  to  be  produced.  As  yet,  we 
have  had  nothing  but  general  ideas  and  vague  and  loose  expres- 
sions. An  indefinite  and  indistinct  notion  is  entertained,  no- 
body here  seems  to  know  on  what  ground,  that  this  bank  is  to 
reanimate  public  credit,  fill  the  treasury,  and  remove  all  the  evils 
that  have  arisen  from  the  depreciation  of  the  paper  of  the  exist- 
ing banks. 

Some  gentlemen,  who  do  not  profess  themselves  to  be  in  all 
respects  pleased  with  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  seem  to  content 
themselves  with  an  idea  that  nothing  better  can  be  obtained, 
and  that  it  is  necessary  to  do  something.  A  strong  impression 
that  something  must  be  done  is  the  origin  of  many  bad  meas- 
ures. It  is  easy,  Sir,  to  do  something,  but  the  object  is  to  do 
something  useful.  It  is  better  to  do  nothing  than  to  do  mis- 
chief. It  is  much  better,  in  my  opinion,  to  make  no  bank,  than 
to  pass  the  bill  as  it  now  is. 

The  interests  to  be  affected  by  this  measure,  the  finances,  the 
public  credit,  and  the  circulating  medium  of  the  country,  are  too 
important  to  be  hazarded  in  schemes  like  these.  If  we  wish  to 
restore  the  public  credit  and  to  reestablish  the  finances,  we  have 
the  beaten  road  before  us.  All  true  analogy,  all  experience,  and 
all  just  knowledge  of  ourselves  and  our  condition,  point  one  way. 
A  wise  and  systematic  economy,  and  a  settled  and  substantial 
revenue,  are  the  means  to  be  relied  on ;  not  excessive  issues  of 
bank-notes,  a  forced  circulation,  and  all  the  miserable  contrivan- 
ces to  which  political  folly  can  resort,  with  the  idle  expectation 
of  giving  to  mere  paper  the  quality  of  money.  These  are  all 
the  inventions  of  a  short-sighted  policy,  vexed  and  goaded  by 
the  necessities  of  the  moment,  and  thinking  less  of  a  permanent 
remedy  than  of  shifts  and  expedients  to  avoid  the  present  dis- 
tress. They  have  been  a  thousand  times  adopted,  and  a  thou- 
sand times  exploded  as  delusive  and  ruinous,  as  destructive  of 
all  solid  revenue,  and  incompatible  with  the  security  of  private 
property. 

It  is,  Sir,  sufficiently  obvious,  that,  to  produce  any  benefit, 
this  bank  must  be  so  constructed  as  that  its  notes  shall  have 
credit  \\ith  the  public.  The  first  inquiry,  therefore,  should  be, 
vhethei  the  bills  of  a  bank  of  this  kind  will  not  be  immediately 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES.  41 

and  greatly  depreciated.  I  think  they  will.  It  would  be  a  won- 
der if  they  should  not.  This  effect  will  be  produced  by  that 
excessive  issue  of  its  paper  which  the  bank  must  make  in  its 
loan  to  government.  Whether  its  issues  of  paper  are  excessive 
will  depend,  not  on  the  nominal  amount  of  its  capital,  but  on  its 
ability  to  redeem  it.  This  is  the  only  safe  criterion.  Very  spe- 
cial cases  may  perhaps  furnish  exceptions,  but  there  is,  in  gen- 
eral, no  security  for  the  credit  of  paper,  but  the  ability  in  those 
who  emit  to  redeem  it.  Whenever  bank-notes  are  not  con- 
vertible into  gold  and  .silver  at  the  will  of  the  holder,  they  be- 
come of  less  value  than  gold  and  silver.  All  experiments  on 
this  subject  have  come  to  the  same  result.  It  is  so  clear,  and 
has  been  so  universally  admitted,  that  it  would  be  waste  of 
time  to  dwell  upon  it.  The  depreciation  may  not  be  sensibly 
perceived  the  first  day,  or  the  first  week,  it  takes  place.  It  will 
first  be  discerned  in  what  is  called  the  rise  of  specie ;  it  will  next 
be  seen  in  the  increased  price  of  all  commodities.  The  circulat- 
ing medium  of  a  commercial  community  must  be  that  which  is 
also  the  circulating  medium  of  other  commercial  communities, 
or  must  be  capable  of  being  converted  into  that  medium  with- 
out loss.  It  must  be  able,  not  only  to  pass  in  payments  and 
receipts  among  individuals  of  the  same  society  and  nation,  but 
to  adjust  and  discharge  the  balance  -of  exchanges  between  dif- 
ferent nations.  It  must  be  something  which  has  a  value  abroad, 
as  well  as  at  home,  and  by  which  foreign  as  well  as  domestic 
debts  can  be  satisfied.  The  precious  metals  alone  answer  these 
purposes.  They  alone,  therefore,  ar.e  money,  and  whatever  else 
is  to  perform  the  offices  of  money  must  be  their  representative, 
and  capable  of  being  turned  into  them  at  will.  So  long  as  bank 
paper  retains  this  quality,  it  is  a  substitute  for  money;  divested 
of  this,  nothing  can  give  it  that  character.  No  solidity  of  funds, 
no  sufficiency  of  assets,  no  confidence  in  the  solvency  of  bank- 
ing institutions,  has  ever  enabled  them  to  keep  up  their  paper  to 
the  value  of  gold  and  silver  any  longer  than  they  paid  gold  and 
silver  for  it,  on  demand.  This  will  continue  to  be  the  case  so 
long  as  those  metals  shah1  continue  to  be  the  standard  of  value 
and  the  general  circulating  medium  among  nations. 

A  striking  illustration  of  this  common  principle  is  found  in 
the  early  history  of  the  Bank  of  England.     In  the  year  1697,  it 
had  been  so  liberal  of  its  loans,  that  it  was  compelled  to  sus- 
4* 


42  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

pend  the  payment  of  its  notes.  Its  paper  immediately  fell  to  a 
discount  of  near  twenty  per  cent.  Yet  such  was  the  public 
opinion  of  the  solidity  of  its  funds,  that  its  stock  then  sold  for 
one  hundred  and  ten  per  cent.,  although  no  more  than  sixty  per 
cent,  upon  the  subscription  had  been  paid  in.  The  same  fate, 
as  is  well  known,  attended  the  banks  of  Scotland,  when  they 
adopted  the  practice  of  inserting  in  their  notes  a  clause,  giving 
the  banks  an  option  of  paying  their  notes  on  demand,  or  six 
months  after  demand,  with  interest.  Paper  of  this  sort  was  not 
convertible  into  specie,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  holder;  and  no 
conviction  of  the  ability  of  the  bank  which  issued  it  could  pre- 
serve it  from  depreciation. 

The  suspension  of  specie  payments  by  the  Bank  of  England, 
in  1797,  and  the  consequences  which  followed,  afford  no  argu- 
ment to  overthrow  this  general  experience.  If  Bank  of  Eng- 
land notes  were  not  immediately  depreciated  on  that  occasion, 
depreciation,  nevertheless,  did  ensue.  Very  favorable  causes 
existed  to  prevent  their  sudden  depression.  It  was  an  old  and 
rich  institution.  It  was  known  to  be  under  the  most  discreet 
and  independent  management.  Government  had  no  control 
over  it,  to  force  it  to  make  loans  against  its  interest  or  its  will. 
On  the  contrary,  it  compelled  the  government  to  pay,  though 
with  much  inconvenience  to  itself,  a  very  considerable  sum 
which  was  due  to  it.  The  country  enjoyed,  at  that  time,  an 
extensive  commerce,  and  a  revenue  of  three  hundred  millions  of 
dollars  was  collected  and  distributed  through  the  bank.  Under 
all  these  advantages,  however,  the  difference  of  price  between 
bank-notes  and  coin  became  at  one  time  so  great,  as  to  threaten 
the  most  dangerous  consequences.  Suppose  the  condition  of 
England  to  have  been  reversed.  Suppose  that,  instead  of  a 
prosperous  and  increasing  commerce,  she  had  suffered  the  ruin 
of  her  trade,  and  that  the  product  of  her  manufactures  had  lain 
upon  her  hands,  as  the  product  of  our  agriculture  now  perishes 
in  ours.  Does  any  one  imagine  that  her  circulating  paper  could 
have  existed  and  maintained  any  credit,  in  such  a  change  of 
her  condition  ?  What  ought  to  surprise  us  is,  not  that  her  bank 
paper  was  depreciated,  but  that  it  was  not  depreciated  sooner 
and  lower  than  in  fact  it  was.  The  reason  can  only  be  found 
in  that  extraordinary  combination  of  favorable  circumstances, 
which  never  existed  before,  and  is  hardly  to  be  expected  again. 
Much  less  is  it  to  be  discovered  in  our  condition  at  present. 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  43 

But  we  have  experience  nearer  home.  The  paper  of  all  the 
banks  south  of  New  England  has  become  depreciated  to  an 
alarming  extent.  This  cannot  be  denied.  The  idea  that  this 
depreciation  exists  only  at  a  distance  from  the  banks  respective- 
ly is  unfounded  and  absurd.  It  exists  everywhere.  The  rates  of 
exchange,  both  foreign  and  domestic,  put  this  point  beyond  con- 
troversy. If  a  bill  of  exchange  on  Europe  can  be  purchased,  as 
it  may,  twenty  per  cent,  cheaper  in  Boston  than  in  Baltimore, 
the  reason  must  be  that  it  is  paid  for  in  Boston  in  money,  and 
in  Baltimore  in  something  twenty  per  cent,  less  valuable  than 
money.  Notwithstanding  the  depression  of  their  paper,  it  is 
not  probable  that  any  doubt  is  entertained  of  the  sufficiency  of 
the  funds  of  the  principal  banks.  Certainly  no  such  doubt  is 
the  cause  of  the  fall  of  their  paper ;  because  the  depression  of 
the  paper  of  all  the  banks  in  any  place  is,  as  far  as  I  learn,  gen- 
erally uniform  and  equal ;  whereas,  if  public  opinion  proceeded 
at  all  upon  the  adequacy  or  inadequacy  of  their  funds,  it  would 
necessarily  come  to  different  results  in  different  cases,  as  some 
of  these  institutions  must  be  supposed  to  be  richer  than  others. 

Sir,  something  must  be  discovered  which  has  hitherto  escaped 
the  observation  of  mankind,  before  you  can  give  to  paper  in- 
tended for  circulation  the  value  of  a  metallic  currency,  any 
longer  than  it  represents  that  currency,  and  is  convertible  into  it, 
at  the  will  of  the  holder.  The  paper  of  this  bank,  if  you  make 
it,  will  be  depreciated,  for  the  same  reason  that  the  paper  of 
other  banks  that  have  gone  before  it,  and  of  those  which  now 
exist  around  us,  has  been  depreciated,  because  it  is  not  to  pay 
specie  for  its  notes.  Other  institutions,  setting  out  perhaps  on 
honest  principles,  have  fallen  into  discredit,  through  mismanage- 
ment or  misfortune.  But  this  bank  is  to  begin  with  insolvency. 
It  is  to  issue  its  bills  to  the  amount  of  thirty  millions,  when 
every  body  knows  it  cannot  pay  them.  It  is  to  commence  its 
existence  in  dishonor.  It  is  to  draw  its  first  breath  in  disgrace. 
The  promise  contained  in  the  first  note  it  sends  forth  is  to  be  a 
false  promise,  and  whoever  receives  the  note  is  to  take  it  with 
the  knowledge  that  it  is  not  to  be  paid  according  to  the  terms 
of  it. 

But  this,  Sir,  is  not  all.  The  framers  of  this  bill  have  not 
done  their  work  by  halves.  They  have  put  the  depreciation  of 
the  notes  of  their  bank  beyond  all  doubt  or  uncertainty.  They 


44  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES. 

have  made  assurance  doubly  sure.  In  addition  to  excessive 
issues  of  paper,  and  the  failure  to  make  payments,  both  which 
they  provide  for  by  law,  they  make  the  capital  of  the  bank  to 
consist  principally  of  public  stock.  If  this  stock  should  be 
sold  as  in  the  former  Bank  of  the  United  States,  the  evil  would 
be  less.  But  the  bank  has  not  the  power  to  sell  it,  and,  for 
all  purposes  of  enabling  it  to  fulfil  its  engagements,  its  funds 
might  as  well  be  at  the  bottom  of  the  ocean  as  in  government 
stocks,  of  which  it  cannot  enforce  payment,  and  of  which  it 
cannot  dispose.  The  credit  of  this  institution  is  to  be  founded 
on  public  funds,  not  on  private  property  or  commercial  credit. 
It  is  to  be  a  financial,  not  a  commercial  bank.  Its  credit  can 
hardly,  therefore,  be  better  at  any  time  than  the  credit  of  the 
government.  If  the  stocks  be  depreciated,  so  of  course  must 
every  thing  be  which  rests  on  the  stocks.  It  would  require  extra- 
ordinary ingenuity  to  show  how  a  bank,  which  is  founded  on 
the  public  debt,  is  to  have  any  better  reputation  than  the  debt 
itself.  It  must  be  some  very  novel  invention  which  makes  the 
superstructure  keep  its  place  after  the  foundation  has  fallen. 
The  argument  seems  to  stand  thus.  The  public  funds,  it  is  ad- 
mitted, have  little  credit;  the  bank  will  have  no  credit  which  it 
does  not  borrow  of  the  funds ;  but  the  bank  will  be  in  full  credit. 

If,  Sir,  we  were  in  a  temper  to  learn  wisdom  from  experience, 
the  history  of  most  of  the  banks  on  the  continent  of  Europe 
might  teach  us  the  futility  of  all  these  contrivances.  Those  in- 
stitutions, like  this  before  us,  were  established  for  purposes  of 
finance,  not  purposes  of  commerce.  The  same  fortune  has  hap- 
pened to  them  all.  Their  credit  has  sunk.  Their  respective 
governments  go  to  them  for  money  when  they  can  get  it  no- 
where else ;  and  the  banks  can  relieve  their  wants  only  by  new 
issues  of  their  own  paper.  As  this  is  not  redeemed,  the  inva- 
riable consequence  of  depreciation  follows ;  and  this  has  some- 
times led  to  the  miserable  and  destructive  expedient  of  deprecia- 
tion of  the  coin  itself.  Such  are  the  banks  of  Petersburg,  Co- 
penhagen, Vienna,  and  other  cities  of  Europe ;  and  while  the 
paper  of  these  government  banks  has  been  thus  depressed,  that 
of  other  banks  existing  in  their  neighborhood,  unconnected  with 
government,  and  conducting  their  business  on  the  basis  of  com- 
mercial credit,  has  retained  a  value  equivalent  to  that  of  coin. 

Excessive  issues  of  paper,  and  a  close  connection  with  govern' 


BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES.  45 

merit,  are  the  circumstances  which  of  all  others  are  the  most 
certain  to  destroy  the  credit  of  bank  paper.  If  there  were  no 
excessive  issues,  or,  in  other  words,  if  the  bank  paid  its  notes  in 
specie  on  demand,  its  connection  with  government  and  its  in- 
terest in  the  funds  would  not,  perhaps,  materially  affect  the 
circulation  of  its  paper,  although  they  would  naturally  diminish 
the  value  of  its  stock.  But  when  these  two  circumstances  exist 
in  the  condition  of  any  bank,  that  it  does  not  pay  its  notes,  and 
that  its  funds  are  in  public  stocks,  and  all  its  operations  inti- 
mately blended  with  the  operations  of  government,  nothing  fur- 
ther need  be  known,  to  be  quite  sure  that  its  paper  will  not 
answer  the  purpose  of  a  creditable  circulating  medium. 

I  look  upon  it,  therefore,  Sir,  as  certain,  that  a  very  considera- 
ble discount  will  attach  itself  to  the  notes  of  this  bank  the  first 
day  of  their  appearance ;  that  this  discount  will  continue  to  in- 
crease ;  and  unless  Congress  should  be  able  to  furnish  some 
remedy  which  is  not  certain,  the  paper,  in  the  end,  will  be  worth 
nothing.  If  this  happens,  not  only  will  no  one  of  the  benefits 
proposed  be  obtained,  but  evils  of  the  most  alarming  magnitude 
will  follow.  All  the  horrors  of  a  paper-money  system  are  before 
us.  If  we  venture  on  the  present  expedient,  we  shall  hardly  be 
able  to  avoid  them.  The  ruin  of  public  affairs  and  the  wreck 
of  private  property  wih1  ensue. 

I  would  ask,  Sir,  whether  the  friends  of  this  measure  have 
well  considered  what  effect  it  will  produce  on  the  revenue  of  the 
country  ?  By  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  the  notes  of  this  bank 
are  to  be  received  in  payment  of  all  taxes  and  other  dues  to  gov- 
ernment. They  cannot  be  refused  on  account  of  the  deprecia- 
tion of  their  value.  Government  binds  itself  to  receive  them  at 
par,  although  it  should  be  obliged  immediately  to  pay  them  put 
at  a  discount  of  a  hundred  per  cent.  It  is  certain,  then,  that  a 
loss  in  the  revenue  wih1  be  sustained,  equal  to  any  depreciation 
which  may  take  place  in  this  paper ;  and  when  the  paper  shall 
come  to  nothing,  the  revenue  of  the  country  will  come  to  noth- 
ing along  with  it.  This  has  happened  to  other  countries  where 
this  wretched  system  has  been  adopted,  and  it  will  happen  here. 
The  Austrian  government  resorted  to  a  similar  experiment  in  a 
very  critical  period  of  its  affairs,'in  1809,  the  year  of  the  last 
campaign  between  that  country  and  France  previous  to  the 
coalition.  Pressed  by  the  necessities  of  the  occasion,  the  gov- 


46  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

ernment  caused  a  large  quantity  of  paper  to  be  issued,  which 
was  to  be  received  in  imposts  and  taxes.  The  paper  immedi- 
ately fell  to  a  depreciation  of  four  for  one.  The  consequence 
was,  that  the  government  lost  its  revenue,  and  with  it  the 
means  of  supplying  its  armies  and  defending  its  empire.  Is 
this  government  now  ready,  Sir,  to  put  its  resources  all  at  haz- 
ard, by  pursuing  a  similar  course  ?  Is  it  ready  to  sacrifice  its 
whole  substantial  revenue  and  permanent  supplies  to  an  ill-con- 
trived, ill-considered,  dangerous,  and  ruinous  project,  adopted 
only  as  the  means  of  obtaining  a  little  present  and  momentary 
relief? 

It  ought  to  be  considered,  also,  what  effects  this  bank  will  pro- 
duce on  other  banking  institutions  already  existing,  and  on  the 
paper  which  they  have  issued.  The  aggregate  capital  of  these 
institutions  is  large.  The  amount  of  then-  notes  is  large,  and 
these  notes  constitute,  at  present,  in  a  great  portion  of  the  coun- 
try, the  only  circulating  medium,  if  they  can  be  called  a  circu- 
lating medium.  Whatever  affects  this  paper,  either  to  raise  it 
or  depress  it  lower  than"  it  is,  affects  the  interests  of  every  man 
in  the  community.  It  is  sufficient  on  this  point  to  refer  to  the 
memorial  from  the  banks  of  New  York.  That  assures  us,  that 
the  operation  of  such  a  bank  as  this  bill  would  establish  must 
be  to  increase  the  difficulties  and  distress  which  the  existing 
banks  now  experience,  and  to  render  it  nearly  impossible  for 
them  to  resume  the  payment  of  their  notes.  This  is  what  every 
man  would  naturally  expect.  Paper  already  depreciated  will 
necessarily  be  sunk  still  lower,  when  another  flood  of  depreci- 
ated paper  is  forfced  into  circulation. 

Very  recently  this  government  refused  to  extend  the  charter 
o^the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was 
unconstitutional  for  Congress  to  create  banks.  Many  of  the 
State  banks  owe  their  existence  to  this  decision.  It  was  an  in- 
vitation to  the  States  to  incorporate  as  much  banking  capital  as 
would  answer  all  the  purposes  of  the  country.  Notwithstand- 
ing what  we  may  now  see  and  hear,  it  would  then  have  been 
deemed  a  gross  imputation  on  the  consistency  of  government, 
if  any  man  had  expressed  an  expectation,  that  in  five  years  all 
these  constitutional  scruples  would  be  forgotten,  all  the  dangers 
to  political  liberty  from  moneyed  institutions  disregarded,  and  a 
bank  proposed  upon  the  most  extraordinary  principles,  with  an 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  47 

unprecedented  amount  of  capital,  and  with  no  obligation  to  ful- 
fil its  contracts.  The  State  banks  have  not  forced  themselves  in 
the  way  of  government.  They  were  established,  many  of  them 
at  least,  when  government  had  declared  its  purpose  to  have  no 
bank  of  its  own.  They  deserve  some  regard  on  their  own  ac- 
count, and  on  account  of  those  particularly  concerned  in  them. 
But  they  deserve  much  more  consideration,  on  account  of  the 
quantity  of  paper  which  is  in  circulation,  and  the  interest  which 
the  whole  community  has  in  it. 

Let  it  also  be  recollected,  Sir,  that  the  present  condition  of 
the  banks  is  principally  owing  to  their  advances  to  government. 
The  treasury  has  borrowed  of  the  banks,  or  of  those  who  them- 
selves borrowed  of  the  banks,  till  the  banks  have  become  as 
poor,  and  almost  as  much  discredited,  as  the  treasury  itself. 
They  have  depreciated  their  paper,  nearly  ruined  themselves, 
and  brought  the  sorest  distress  on  the  country,  by  doing  that  on 
a  small  scale  which  this  bank  is  to  perform  on  a  scale  vastly 
larger.  It  is  almost  unpardonable  in  the  conductors  of  these 
institutions,  not  to  have  foreseen  the  consequences  which  have 
resulted  from  the  course  pursued  by  them.  They  were  all  plain 
and  visible.  If  they  have  any  apology,  it  is  that  they  were  no 
blinder  than  the  government,  and  that  they  yielded  to  those 
who  would  take  no  denial.  It  will  be  altogether  unpardonable 
in  us,  if,  with  this  as  well  as  all  other  experience  before  us,  we 
continue  to  pursue  a  system  which  must  inevitably  lead  us 
through  depreciation  of  currency,  paper-money,  tender-laws, 
and  all  the  contemptible  and  miserable  contrivances  of  disor- 
dered finance  and  national  insolvency,  to  complete  and  entire 
bankruptcy  in  the  end. 

I  hope  the  House  will  recommit  the  bill  for  amendment 


THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY.* 


A  BILL  reported  by  Mr.  Calhoun  for  the  restoration  of  the  currency 
was  rejected  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  25th  of  April,  1816. 
On  the  26th,  Mr.  Webster  introduced  three  resolutions  having  the  same 
object  in  view  ;  and  in  support  of  them  made  the  following  speech. 
The  first  two,  being  declaratory  of  principles  only,  were  withdrawn 
at  the  request  of  several  gentlemen,  who  were  in  favor  of  the  third 
resolution,  which  contained  Mr.  Webster's  plan  for  restoring  the  cur- 
icncy. 

It  provided  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  should  adopt  such 
measures  as  he  might  deem  necessary,  to  cause,  as  soon  as  might  be, 
all  sums  of  money  due  to  the  United  States  "  to  be  collected  and  paid 
in  the  legal  currency  of  the  United  States,  or  treasury-notes,  or  notes 
of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  as  by  law  provided  and  declared, 
or  in  notes  of  banks  which  are  payable  and  paid  on  demand,  in  the 
said  legal  currency  of  the  United  States " ;  and  it  directed  that,  after 
the  20th  of  February  next  ensuing,  nothing  else  should  be  received  in 
payment  of  the  public  dues. 

This  resolution  was  received  with  great  favor  by  the  House,  and 
passed  through  all  the  stages  of  legislation  on  the  same  day  (the  26th 
of  April)  by  a  majority  of  more  than  two  thirds.  It  was  approved  by 
President  Madison  on  the  30th,  and  was  completely  successful  in  restor- 
ing a  sound  currency. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  have  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  House  once  more  to  the  subject  of  the  collec- 
tion of  the  revenue,  and  to  present  the  resolutions  which  are 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
on  the  26th  of  April,  1816,  on  the  Collection  of  the  Revenue  in  the  Legal  Cur- 
rency of  the  Country. 


THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY.  49 

now  submitted.  I  have  been  the  more  inclined  to  do  this  from 
an  apprehension  that  the  rejection,  yesterday,  of  the  bill  which 
had  been  introduced,  may  be  construed  into  an  abandonment, 
on  the  part  of  the  House,  of  all  hope  of  remedying  the  existing 
evil.  I  have  had,  it  is  true,  some  objections  against  proceed- 
ing by  way  of  bill ;  because  the  case  is  not  one  in  which  the 
law  is  deficient,  but  one  in  which  the  execution  of  the  law 
is  deficient.  The  great  object,  however,  is  to  obtain  a  decia« 
ion  of  this  and  the  other  house,  that  the  present  mode  of  receiv- 
ing the  revenue  shall  not  be  continued;  and  as  this  might  be 
substantially  effected  by  the  bill,  I  had  hoped  that  it  might 
pass.  This  hope  has  been  disappointed.  The  bill  has  been 
rejected.  The  House  has  put  its  negative  upon  the  only  propo- 
sition which  has  been  submitted  to  it,  for  correcting  a  state  of 
things  which  every  body  knows  to  exist  in  plain  violation  of  the 
Constitution,  and  in  open  defiance  of  the  written  letter  of  the 
law.  For  one,  I  can  never  consent  to  adjourn,  leaving  this 
implied  sanction  of  the  House  upon  all  that  has  taken  place, 
and  all  that  may  hereafter  take  place.  I  hope  not  to  hear 
again  that  there  is  not  now  time  to  act  on  this  question.  If 
other  gentlemen  consider  the  question  as  important  as  I  do, 
they  will  not  forbear  to  act  on  it  from  any  desire,  however 
strong,  to  bring  the  session  to  an  early  close. 

The  situation  of  the  country,  in  regard  to  its  finances  and 
the  collection  of  its  revenues,  is  most  deplorable.  With  a  per- 
fectly sound  legal  currency,  the  national  revenues  are  not  col- 
lected in  this  currency,  but  in  paper  of  various  sorts  and  various 
degrees  of  value.  The  origin  and  progress  of  this  evil  are  dis- 
tinctly known,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  its  duration  or  its  future 
extent,  if  an  adequate  remedy  be  not  soon  found.  Before  the 
war,  the  business  of  the  country  was  conducted  principally  by 
means  of  the  paper  of  the  different  State  banks.  As  these 
were  in  good  credit,  and  paid  their  notes  in  gold  and  silver  on 
demand,  no  great  evil  was  experienced  from  the  circulation  of 
their  paper.  Not  being,  however,  a  part  of  the  legal  money  of 
the  country,  it  could  not,  by  law,  be  received  in  the  payment  of 
duties,  taxes,  or  other  debts  to  government.  But  being  paja- 
ble,  and  hitherto  regularly  paid,  on  demand,  the  collectors  and 
agents  of  government  had  generally  received  it  as  cash ;  it  had 
been  deposited  as  cash  in  the  banks  which  received  the  deposits 

VOL.    III.  5 


50  THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY. 

of  government,  and  from  them  it  had  been  drawn  as  cash,  and 
paid  off  to  creditors  of  the  public. 

During  the  war  this  state  of  things  changed.  Many  of  the 
banks  had  been  induced  to  make  loans  to  a  very  great  amount 
to  the  government.  These  loans  were  made  by  an  issue  of  their 
own  bills.  This  proceeding  threw  into  circulation  an  immense 
quantity  of  bank  paper,  in  no  degree  corresponding  with  the 
mercantile  business  of  the  country,  and  resting,  for  its  payment 
and  redemption,  on  nothing  but  the  government  stocks,  which 
were  held  by  the  banks.  The  consequence  immediately  fol- 
lowed, which  it  would  be  imputing  a  gfeat  degree  of  blindness 
both  to  the  government  and  to  the  banks  to  suggest  that  they 
had  not  foreseen.  The  excess  of  paper  which  was  found  every- 
where created  alarm.  Demands  began  to  be  made  on  the 
banks,  and  they  all  stopped  payment.  No  contrivance  to  get 
money  without  inconvenience  to  the  people  ever  had  a  shorter 
course  of  experiment,  or  a  more  unequivocal  termination.  The 
depreciation  of  bank-notes  was  the  necessary  consequence  of  a 
neglect  or  refusal  to  pay  them,  on  the  part  of  those  who  issued 
them.  It  took  place  immediately,  and  has  continued,  with  occa- 
sional fluctuations  in  the  depression, ,  to  the  present  moment. 
What  still  further  increases  the  evil  is,  that  this  bank  paper, 
being  the  issue  of  very  many  institutions,  situated  in  different 
parts  of  the  country,  and  possessing  different  degrees  of  credit, 
the  depreciation  has  not  been,  and  is  not  now,  uniform  through- 
out the  United  States.  It  is  not  the  same  at  Baltimore  as  at 
Philadelphia,  nor  the  same  at  Philadelphia  as  at  New  York. 
In  New  England,  the  banks  have  not  stopped  payment  in 
specie,  and  of  course  their  paper  has  not  been  depressed  at 
all.  But  the  notes  of  banks  which  have  ceased  to  pay  specie 
have,  nevertheless,  been,  and  still  are,  received  for  duties  and 
taxes,  in  the  places  where  such  banks  exist.  The  consequence 
of  all  this  is,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  pay  their 
duties  and  taxes  in  currencies  of  different  values  in  different 
places.  In  other  words,  taxes  and  duties  are  higher  in  some 
places  than  they  are  in  others,  by  as  much  as  the  value  of 
gold  and  silver  is  greater  than  the  value  of  the  several  descrip- 
tions of  bank  paper  which  are  received  by  government.  This 
difference  in  relation  to  the  paper  of  the  District  where  we  now 
are,  is  twenty-five  per  cent.  Taxes  and  duties,  therefore,  col- 


THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY.  51 

lected  in  Massachusetts,  are  one  quarter  higher  than  the  taxes 
and  duties  which  are  collected,  by  virtue  of  the  same  laws,  in 
the  District  of  Columbia. 

By  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  is  certain  that 
all  duties,  taxes,  and  excises  ought  to  be  uniform  throughout 
the  country ;  and  that  no  preference  should  be  given,  by  any 
regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue,  to  the  ports  of  one  State 
over  those  of  another.  This  constitutional  provision,  it  is  obvi- 
ous, is  flagrantly  violated.  Duties  and  taxes  are  not  uniform. 
They  are  higher  in  some  places  than  in  others.  A  citizen  of 
New  England  pays  his  taxes  in  gold  and  silver,  or  their  equiva- 
lent. From  his  hand  the  collector  will  not  receive,  and  is  in- 
structed by  government  not  to  receive,  the  paper  of  the  banks 
which  do  not  pay  their  notes  on  demand,  and  which  notes  he 
could  obtain  twenty  or  twenty-five  per  cent,  cheaper  than  that 
which  is  demanded  of  him.  Yet  a  citizen  of  the  Middle  States 
pays  his  taxes  in  these  notes  at  par.  Can  a  greater  injustice, 
than  this  be  conceived  ?  Can  constitutional  provisions  be  dis- 
regarded in  a  more  essential  point?  Commercial  preferences 
also  are  given,  which,  if  they  should  be  continued,  would  be 
sufficient  to  annihilate  the  commerce  of  some  cities  and  some 
States,  while  they  would  greatly  promote  that  of  others.  The 
importing  merchant  of  Boston  pays  the  duties  upon  his  goods, 
either  in  specie  or  cash  notes,  which  are  at  least  twenty  per 
cent,  or  in  treasury-notes,  which  are  ten  per  cent,  more  valu- 
able than  the  notes  which  are  paid  for  duties,  at  par,  by  the 
importing  merchant  at  Baltimore.  Surely  this  is  not  to  be 
endured.  Such  monstrous  inequality  and  injustice  cannot  con- 
tinue. Since  the  commencement  of  this  course  of  things,  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  people  of  the  Northern  States  have  paid 
a  million  of  dollars  more  than  their  just  proportion  of  the  pub- 
lic burdens.  A  similar  inequality,  though  somewhat  less  in 
degree,  has  fallen  upon  the  States  south  of  the  Potomac,  in 
which  the  paper  in  circulation,  although  not  equivalent  to  specie, 
is  yet  of  higher  value  than  the  bank-notes  of  this  District,  Mary- 
land, and  the  Middle  States. 

But  it  is  not  merely  the  inequality  and  injustice  of  this  sys- 
tem, if  that  may  be  called  system  which  is  rather  the  want  of 
all  system,  that  need  reform.  It  throws  the  whole  revenue  into 
derangerrent  and  endless  confusion.  It  prevents  the  possibility 


52  THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY. 

of  order,  method,  or  certainty  in  the  public  receipts  or  disburse- 
ments. This  mass  of  depressed  paper,  thrown  out  at  first  in 
loans  to  accommodate  government,  has  done  little  else  than 
embarrass  and  distress  government.  It  can  hardly  be  said  to 
circulate,  but  it  lies  in  the  channel  of  circulation,  and  chokes  it 
up  by  its  bulk  and  rts  sluggishness.  In  a  great  portion  of  the 
country  the  dues  are  not  paid,  or  are  badly  paid ;  and  in  an 
equal  portion  of  the  country  the  public  creditors  are  not  paid,  or 
are  paid  badly. 

It  is  quite  clear,  that  by  the  statute  all  duties  and  taxes  are 
required  to  be  paid  in  the  legal  money  of  the  United  States, 
or  in  treasury-notes,  agreeably  to  recent  provisions.  It  is  just 
as  clear,  that  the  law  has  been  disregarded,  and  that  the  notes 
of  banks  of  a  hundred  different  descriptions,  and  almost  as 
many  different  values,  have  been  received,  and  still  are  received, 
where  the  statute  requires  legal  money  or  treasury-notes  to  be 
paid. 

In  these  circumstances,  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  Con- 
gress will  adjourn,  without  attempting  something  by  way  of 
remedy.  In  my  opinion,  no  greater  evil  has  threatened  us. 
Nothing  can  more  endanger,  either  the  existence  and  preserva- 
tion of  the  public  revenue,  or  the  security  of  private  property, 
than  the  consequences  which  are  to  be  apprehended  from  the 
present  course  of  things,  if  they  be  not  arrested  by  a  timely  and 
an  effectual  interference.  Let  gentlemen  consider  what  will 
probably  happen,  if  Congress  should  rise  without  the  adoption 
of  any  measure  on  the  subject. 

Virginia,  having  passed  a  law  for  compelling  the  banks  in 
that  State  to  limit  the  circulation  of  their  paper,  and  resume 
specie  payments  by  the  autumn,  will,  doubtless,  repeal  it.  The 
States  farther  to  the  south  will  probably  fall  into  a  similar  relax- 
ation, for  it  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that  they  will  have  firmness 
and  perseverance  enough  to  persist  in  their  present  most  prudent 
and  commendable  course,  without  the  countenance  of  the  gen- 
eral government.  If,  in  addition  to  these  events,  an  abandon- 
ment of  the  wholesome  system  which  has  thus  far  prevailed  in 
the  Northern  States,  or  any  relaxation  of  that  system,  should  take 
place,  the  government  is  in  danger  of  falling  into  a  condition, 
from  which  it  will  hardly  be  able  to  extricate  itself  for  twenty 
years,  if  indeed  it  shall  ever  be  able  to  extricate  itself;  and  if 


THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY.  53 

that  state  of  things,  instead  of  being  changed  by  the  government, 
shall  not  change  the  government. 

It  is  our  business  to  foresee  this  danger,  and  to  avoid  it. 
There  are  some  political  evils  which  are  seen  as  soon  as  they 
are  dangerous,  and  which  alarm  at  once  as  well  the  people  as 
the  government.  Wars  and  invasions,  therefore,  are  not  always 
the  most  certain  destroyers  of  national  prosperity.  They  come 
in  no  questionable  shape.  They  announce  their  own  approach, 
and  the  general  security  is  preserved  by  the  general  alarm. 
Not  so  with  the  evils  of  a  debased  coin,  a  depreciated  paper  cur- 
rency, or  a  depressed  and  falling  public  credit.  Not  so  with  the 
plausible  and  insidious  mischiefs  of  a  paper-money  system. 
These  insinuate  themselves  in  the  shape  of  facilities,  accommo- 
dation, and  relief.  They  hold  out  the  most  fallacious  hope 
of  an  easy  payment  of  debts,  and  a  lighter  burden  of  tax- 
ation. It  is  easy  for  a  portion  of  the  people  to  imagine  that 
government  may  properly  continue  to  receive  depreciated  paper, 
because  they  have  received  it,  and  because  it  is  more  conven- 
ient to  obtain  it  than  to  obtain  other  paper  or  specie.  But  on 
these  subjects  it  is  that  government  ought  to  exercise  its  own 
peculiar  wisdom  and  caution.  It  is  supposed  to  possess,  on 
subjects  of  this  nature,  somewhat  more  of  foresight  than  has 
fallen  to  the  lot  of  individuals.  It  is  bound  to  foresee  the  evil 
before  every  man  feels  it,  and  to  take  all  necessary  measures  to 
guard  against  it,  although  they  may  be  measures  attended  with 
some  difficulty  and  not  without  temporary  inconvenience.  In 
my  humble  judgment,  the  evil  demands  the  immediate  attention 
of  Congress.  It  is  not  certain,  and  in  my  opinion  not  probable, 
that  it  will  ever  cure  itself.  It  is  more  likely  to  grow  by  indul- 
gence, while  the  remedy  which  must  in  the  end  be  applied  will 
become  less  efficacious  by  delay. 

The  only  power  which  the  general  government  possesses  of 
restraining  the  issues  of  the  State  banks,  is  to  refuse  their  notes 
in  the  receipts  of  the  treasury.  This  power  it  can  exercise  now, 
or  at  least  it  can  provide  now  for  exercising  in  reasonable 
time,  because  the  currency  of  some  part  of  the  country  is  yet 
sound,  and  the  evil  is  not  universal.  If  it  should  become 
universal,  who  that  hesitates  now  will  then  propose  any  ade- 
quate means  of  relief?  If  a  measure  like  the  bill  of  yester- 
day, or  the  resolutions  of  to-day,  can  hardly  pass  here  now, 
5* 


54  THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY. 

what  hope  is  there  that  any  efficient  measure  will  be  adopted 
hereafter  ? 

The  conduct  of  the  treasury  department  in  receiving  the  notes 
of  the  banks,  after  they  had  suspended  payment,  might,  or  might 
not,  have  been  excused  by  the  necessity  of  the  case.  That  is 
not  now  the  subject  of  inquiry.  I  wish  such  inquiry  had  been 
instituted.  It  ought  to  have  been.  It  is  of  dangerous  conse- 
quence to  permit  plain  omissions  to  execute  the  law  to  pass  off, 
under  any  circumstances,  without  inquiry.  It  would  probably  be 
easier  to  prove  that  the  treasury  must  have  continued  to  receive 
such  notes,  or  that  all  payments  to  government  would  have 
been  suspended,  than  it  would  be  to  justify  the  previous  nego- 
tiations of  great  loans  at  the  banks,  which  was  a  voluntary  trans- 
action, induced  by  no  particular  necessity,  and  which  is,  never- 
theless, beyond  doubt,  the  principal  cause  of  their  present  con- 
dition. But  I  have  expressed  my  belief  on  more  than  one 
occasion,  and  I  repeat  the  opinion,  that  it  was  the  duty,  and  in 
the  power,  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  the  return  of 
peace,  to  return  to  the  legal  and  proper  mode  of  collecting  the 
revenue.  The  paper  of  the  banks  rose  on  that  occasion  al- 
most to  an  equality  with  specie ;  that  was  the  favorable  mo- 
ment. The  banks  in  which  the  public  money  was  deposited 
ought  to  have  been  induced  to  lead  the  way,  by  the  sale  of  their 
government  stocks,  and  other  measures  calculated  to  bring  about, 
moderately  and  gradually,  but  regularly  and  certainly,  the  resto- 
ration of  the  former  and  only  safe  state  of  things.  It  can  hardly 
be  doubted,  that  the  influence  of  the  treasury  could  have  affected 
all  this.  If  not,  it  could  have  withdrawn  the  deposits  and  coun- 
tenance of  government  from  institutions  which,  against  all  rule 
and  all  propriety,  were  holding  great  sums  in  government  stocks, 
and  making  enormous  profits  from  the  circulation  of  their  own 
dishonored  paper.  That  which  was  most  wanted  was  the  des- 
ignation of  a  time  for  the  corresponding  operation  of  banks  in 
different  places.  This  could  have  been  made  by  the  head  of  the 
treasury,  better  than  by  any  body  or  every  body  else.  But  the 
occasion  was  suffered  to  pass  by  unimproved,  and  the  credit  of 
the  banks  soon  fell  again,  when  it  was  found  they  used  none 
of  the  means  which  the  opportunity  afforded  them  for  enabling 
them  to  fulfil  their  engagements. 

As  to  any  power  of  compulsion  to  be  exercised  over  the  State 


THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY.  55 

banks,  they  are  not  subject  to  the  direct  control  of  the  general 
government.  It  is  for  the  State  authorities  which  created  them 
to  decide  whether  they  have  acted  according  to  their  charters, 
and  if  not,  what  shall  be  the  remedy  for  their  irregularities.  But 
from  such  of  them  as  continued  to  receive  deposits  of  public 
money,  government  had  a  right  to  expect  that  they  would  con- 
duct their  concerns  according  to  the  safe  and  well-known  prin- 
ciples which  should  properly  govern  such  institutions.  It  is 
bound  also  to  collect  its  taxes  of  the  people  on  a  uniform  sys- 
tem. These  rights  and  these  duties  are  too  important  to  be  sur- 
rendered to  the  accommodation  of  any  particular  interest  or  any 
temporary  purpose. 

The  resolutions  before  the  House  take  no  notice  of  the  State 
banks.  They  express  neither  praise  nor  censure  of  them.  They 
neither  commend  them  for  their  patriotism  in  the  loans  made  to 
government,  nor  propose  to  tax  them  for  their  neglect  or  refusal 
to  pay  their  debts.  They  assume  no  power  of  interfering  with 
these  institutions.  They  say  not  one  word  about  compelling 
them  to  resume  their  payments ;  they  leave  that  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  banks  themselves,  or  to  those  who  have  a  right  to 
call  them  to  account  for  any  misconduct  in  that  respect.  But 
the  resolutions  declare  that  taxes  ought  to  be  equal ;  that  pref- 
erences ought  not  to  be  given ;  that  the  revenues  of  the  country 
ought  not  to  be  diminished  in  amount,  nor  hazarded  altogether, 
by  the  receipt  of  varying  and  uncertain  paper;  and  that  the 
present  state  of  things,  in  which  all  these  unconstitutional,  ille- 
gal, and  dangerous  ingredients  are  mixed,  ought  not  to  exist. 

It  has  been  said,  that  these  resolutions  may  be  construed  into 
a  justification  of  the  past  conduct  of  the  treasury  department. 
Such  an  objection  has  been  anticipated.  It  was  made,  in  my 
opinion,  with  much  more  justice  to  the  bill  rejected  yesterday, 
and  a  provision  was  therefore  subsequently  introduced  into 
that  bill  to  exclude  such  an  inference.  This  is  certainly  not  the 
time  to  express  any  justification  or  approbation  of  the  conduct 
of  that  department  on  this  subject,  and  I  trust  these  resolutions 
do  not  imply  it.  Nor  do  the  resolutions  propose  to  express 
any  censure.  A  sufficient  reason  for  declining  to  do  either  is, 
that  the  facts  are  not  sufficiently  known.  What  loss  has  actu- 
ally happened,  what  amount  —  it  is  said  to  be  large  —  may  be 
now  in  the  treasury,  in  notes  which  will  not  pass,  or  under  what 


56  THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY. 

circumstances  these  were  received,  is  not  now  sufficiently  ascer- 
tained. 

But  before  these  resolutions  are  rejected,  on  the  ground  that 
they  may  shield  the  treasury  department  from  responsibility,  it 
ought  to  be  clearly  shown  that  they  are  capable  of  such  a  con- 
struction. The  mere  passing  of  any  resolution  cannot  have  that 
effect.  A  declaration  of  what  ought  to  be  done  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  any  sanction  of  what  has  been  done.  It  may  some- 
times imply  the  contrary.  These  resolutions  cannot  be  macle  to 
imply  any  more  than  this,  —  that  the  financial  affairs  of  the  coun- 
try are  in  such  a  condition  that  the  revenue  cannot  be  instantly 
collected  in  legal  currency.  This  they  do  imply,  and  this  I  sup- 
pose almost  all  admit  to  be  true.  An  instantaneous  execution 
of  the  law,  without  warning  or  notice,  could  in  my  opinion  pro- 
duce nothing,  in  a  portion  of  the  country,  but  an  entire  suspen- 
sion of  payments. 

But  to  whose  fault  it  is  owing  that  the  affairs  of  the  country 
are  reduced  to  this  condition,  they  do  not  declare.  They  do  not 
prevent,  or  in  any  degree  embarrass,  future  inquiry  on  that  sub- 
ject. They  speak  to  the  fact  that  the  finances  are  deranged. 
They  say,  also,  that  reformation,  though  it  must  be  gradual, 
ought  to  be  immediately  begun,  and  to  be  carried  to  perfection 
in  the  shortest  time  practicable.  They  cannot  by  any  fair  con- 
struction be  made  to  express  the  approbation  of  Congress  on  the 
past  conduct  of  any  high  officer  of  government ;  and  if  the  time 
shall  ever  come  when  this  House  shall  deem  investigation  neces- 
sary, it  must  be  a  case  of  very  unpromising  aspect,  and  of  most 
fearful  issue,  which  shall  afford  no  other  hope  of  escape  than  by 
setting  up  these  resolutions  by  way  of  bar  to  an  inquiry. 

Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  this  measure  that  inquiry  has  not 
first  been  had.  Two  duties  may  be  supposed  to  have  rested  on 
the  House :  the  one,  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  the  evil,  if  it 
needed  inquiry ;  and  the  other,  to  find  and  apply  the  remedy. 
Because  one  of  these  duties  has  not  hitherto  been  discharged,  is 
no  reason  why  the  other  should  be  longer  neglected.  While  we 
are  deciding  which  to  do  first,  the  time  of  the  session  is  going 
by  us,  and  neither  may  be  done.  In  the  mean  time,  public  mis- 
chiefs of  unknown  magnitude  and  incalculable  duration  threaten 
the  country.  I  see  no  equivalent,  no  consolation,  no  mitigation, 
for  these  evils  in  the  future  responsibility  of  departments.  Let 


THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY.  57 

gentlemen  show  me  any  responsibility  which  will  not  be  a  name 
and  a  mockery.  If,  when  we  meet  here  again,  it  shall  be  found 
that  all  the  barriers  which  have  hitherto,  in  any  degree,  re- 
strained the  emissions  of  a  paper  money  of  the  very  worst  sort, 
have  given  way,  and  that  the  floods  have  broken  in  upon  us  and 
come  over  us,  —  if  it  shall  be  found  that  revenues  have  failed,  that 
the  public  credit,  now  a  little  propped  and  supported  by  a  state  of 
peace  and  commerce,  has  again  tottered  and  fallen  to  the  ground, 
and  that  all  the  operations  of  government  are  at  a  stand, — 
what  then  will  be  the  value  of  the  responsibility  of  departments  ? 
How  great,  then,  the  value  of  inquiry,  when  the  evil  is  past  pre- 
vention, when  officers  may  have  gone  out  of  place,  and  when, 
indeed,  the  whole  administration  will  necessarily  be  dissolving 
by  the  expiration  of  the  term  for  which  the  chief  executive  mag- 
istrate was  chosen  ?  I  cannot  consent  to  stake  the  chance  of 
the  greatest  public  mischiefs  upon  a  reliance  on  any  such  re- 
sponsibility. The  stakes  are  too  unequal. 

As  to  the  opinion  advanced  by  some,  that  the  object  of  the  res- 
olutions cannot  in  any  way  be  answered,  that  the  revenues  cannot 
be  collected  otherwise  than  as  they  are  now,  in  the  paper  of  any 
and  every  banking  association  which  chooses  to  issue  paper,  it 
cannot  for  a  moment  be  admitted.  This  would  be  at  once  giv- 
ing up  the  government ;  for  what  is  government  without  reve- 
nue, and  what  is  a  revenue  that  is  gathered  together  in  the  vary- 
ing, fluctuating,  discredited,  depreciated,  and  still  falling  prom- 
issory notes  of  two  or  three  hundred  distinct,  and,  as  to  this  gov- 
ernment, irresponsible  banking  companies  ?  If  it  cannot  collect 
its  revenues  in  a  better  manner  than  this,  it  must  cease  to  be  a 
government.  This  thing,  therefore,  is  to  be  done ;  at  any  rate  it 
is  to  be  attempted.  That  it  will  be  accomplished  by  the  treas- 
ury department,  without  the  interference  of  Congress,  I  have  no 
belief.  If  from  that  source  no  reformation  came  when  reforma- 
tion was  easy,  it  is  not  now  to  be  expected.  Especially  after 
the  vote  of  yesterday,  those  whose  interest  it  is  to  continue  the 
present  state  of  things  will  arm  themselves  with  the  authority 
of  Congress.  They  will  justify  themselves  by  the  decision  of 
this  House.  They  will  say,  and  say  truly,  that  this  House,  hav- 
ing taking  up  the  subject  and  discussed  it,  has  not  thought  fit 
so  much  as  to  declare  that  it  is  expedient  ever  to  relieve  the 
country  or  its  revenues  from  a  paper-monev  system.  Whoever 


58  THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY. 

believes  that  the  treasury  department  will  oppose  this  tide,  aided 
as  it  will  be  by  strong  feeling  and  great  interest,  has  more  faith 
in  that  department  than  has  fallen  to  my  lot.  It  is  the  duty  of 
this  House  to  interfere  with  its  own  authority.  Having  taxed 
the  people  with  no  light  hand,  it  is  now  its  duty  to  take  care 
that  the  people  do  not  sustain  these  burdens  in  vain.  The  taxes 
are  not  borne  without  feeling.  They  will  not  be  borne  without 
complaint,  if,  by  mismanagement  in  collection,  their  utility  to 
government  should  be  lost,  and  they  should  get  into  the  treasury 
at  last  only  in  discredited  and  useless  paper. 

A  bank  of  thirty-five  millions  has  been  created  for  the  pro- 
fessed purpose  of  correcting  the  evils  of  our  circulation,  and 
facilitating  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  government.  I  am 
not  so  sanguine  in  the  hope  of  great  benefit  from  this  measure 
as  others  are.  But  the  treasury  is  also  authorized  to  issue 
twenty-five  millions  of  treasury-notes,  eighteen  or  twenty  mil- 
lions of  which  remain  yet  to  be  issued,  and  which  are  also 
allowed  by  law  to  be  received  for  duties  and  taxes.  In  addition 
to  these  is  the  coin  which  is  in  the  country,  and  which  is  sure 
to  come  forth  into  circulation  whenever  there  is  a  demand  for  it. 
These  means,  if  wisely  and  skilfully  administered,  are  sufficient 
to  prevent  any  particular  pressure,  or  great  inconvenience,  in 
returning  to  the  legal  mode  of  collecting  the  revenue.  It  is  true, 
it  may  be  easier  for  the  people  in  the  States  in  which  the  depre- 
ciated paper  exists  to  pay  their  taxes  in  such  paper  than  in  the 
legal  currency  of  treasury-notes,  because  they  can  get  it  cheaper. 
But  this  is  only  saying  that  it  is  easier  to  pay  a  small  tax  than 
to  pay  a  large  one,  or  that  money  costs  more  than  that  which  is 
less  valuable  than  money,  a  proposition  not  to  be  disputed. 
But  a  medium  of  payment  convenient  for  the  people  and  safe 
for  the  government  will  be  furnished,  and  may  everywhere  be 
obtained  for  a  reasonable  price.  This  is  all  that  can  justly  be 
expected  of  Congress.  Having  provided  this,  they  ought  to 
require  all  parts  of  the  country  to  conform  to  the  same  measure 
of  justice.  If  taxes  be  not  necessary,  they  should  not  be  laid. 
If  laid,  they  ought  to  be  collected  without  preference  or  par- 
tiality. 

But  while  some  gentlemen  oppose  the  resolutions  because 
tney  fix  a  day  too  near,  others  think  they  fix  a  day  too  distant. 
In  my  own  judgment,  it  is  not  so  material  what  the  time  is,  as 


THE  LEGAL  CURRENCY.  59 

it  is  to  fix  a  time.  The  great  object  is  to  settle  the  question, 
that  our  legal  currency  is  to  be  preserved,  and  that  we  are  not 
about  to  embark  on  the  ocean  of  paper  money.  The  State 
banks,  if  they  consult  their  own  interest,  or  the  interest  of  the 
community,  will  dispose  of  their  government  stocks,  and  pre- 
pare themselves  to  redeem  their  paper  and  fulfil  their  contracts. 
If  they  should  not  adopt  this  course,  there  will  be  time  for  the 
people  to  be  informed  that  the  paper  of  such  institutions  will 
not  answer  the  demands  of  government,  and  that  duties  and 
taxes  must  be  paid  in  the  manner  provided  by  law. 

I  cannot  say,  indeed,  that  this  measure  will  certainly  produce 
the  desired  effect.  It  may  fail.  Its  success,  as  is  obvious,  must 
essentially  depend  on  the  course  pursued  by  the  treasury  depart- 
ment. But  its  tendency,  I  think,  will  be  to  produce  good.  It 
will,  I  hope,  be  a  proof  that  Congress  is  not  regardless  of  its 
duty.  It  will  be  evidence  that  this  great  subject  has  not  passed 
without  notice.  It  will  record  our  determination  to  resist  the 
introduction  of  a  most  destructive  and  miserable  policy  into  our 
system ;  and  if  there  be  any  sanction  or  authority  in  the  Consti- 
tution and  the  law,  if  there  be  any  regard  for  justice  and 
equality,  if  there  be  any  care  for  the  national  revenue,  or  any 
concern  for  the  public  interest,  let  gentlemen  consider  whether 
they  will  relinquish  their  seat  here  before  this  or  some  other 
measure  be  adopted. 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


THE  rise  and  progress  of  the  revolution  in  Greece  attracted  great 
attention  in  the  United  States.  Many  obvious  causes  contributed  to  this 
effect,  and  their  influence  was  seconded  by  the  direct  appeal  made  to 
the  people  of  America,  by  the  first  political  body  organized  in  Greece 
after  the  breaking  out  of  the  revolution,  viz.  "  The  Messenian  Senate 
of  Calamata."  A  formal  address  was  made  by  that  body  to  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  and  forwarded  by  their  committee  (of  which  the 
celebrated  Koray  was  chairman),  to  a  friend  and  correspondent  in  this 
country.  This  address  was  translated  and  widely  circulated  ;  but  it  was 
not  to  be  expected  that  any  great  degree  of  confidence  should  be  at  once 
generally  felt  in  a  movement  undertaken  against  such  formidable  odds. 

The  progress  of  events,  however,  in  1822  and  1823,  was  such  as  to 
create  an  impression  that  the  revolution  in  Greece  had  a  substantial 
foundation  in  the  state  of  affairs,  in  the  awakened  spirit  of  that  country, 
and  in  the  condition  of  public  opinion  throughout  Christendom.  The 
interest  felt  in  the  struggle  rapidly  increased  in  the  United  States.  Lo- 
cal committees  were  formed,  animated  appeals  were  made,  and  funds 
collected,  with  a  view  to  the  relief  of  the  victims  of  the  war. 

On  the  assembling  of  Congress,  in  December,  1823,  President  Mon- 
roe made  the  revolution  in  Greece  the  subject  of  a  paragraph  in  his 
annual  message,  and  on  the  8th  of  December  Mr.  Webster  moved  the 
following  resolution  in  the  House  of  Representatives :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  provision  ought  to  be  made,  by  law,  for  .  efraying 
the  expense  incident  to  the  appointment  of  an  Agent  or  Commissioner 
to  Greece,  whenever  the  President  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  make  such 
appointment." 

These,  it  is  believed,  are  the  first  official  expressions  favorable  to  the 
independence  of  Greece  uttered  by  any  of  the  governments  of  Christen- 
dom, and  no  doubt  contributed  powerfully  towards  the  creation  of  that 
feeling  throughout  the  civilized  world  which  eventually  led  to  the  battle 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
on  the  19th  of  January,  1824. 


THE  REVOLUTION   IK    GREECE.  61 

of  Navarino,  and  the  liberation  of  a  portion  of  Greece  from  the  Turkish 
yoke. 

The  House  of  Representatives  having,  on  the  19th  of  January,  re- 
solves itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole,  and  this  resolution  being 
taken  into  consideration,  Mr.  Webster  spoke  to  the  following  effect. 

I  AM  afraid,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  so  far  as  my  part  in  this  dis-  / 
cussion  is  concerned,  those  expectations  which  the  public  ex-.  / 
citement  existing  on  the  subject,  and  certain  associations  easily 
suggested  by  it,  have  conspired  to  raise,  may  be  disappointed^-^ 
An  occasion  which  calls  the  attention  to  a  spot  so  distinguished, 
so  connected  with  interesting  recollections,  as  Greece,  may  natu- 
rally create  something  of  warmth  and  enthusiasm.  In  a  grave, 
political  discussion,  however,  it  is  necessary  that  those  feelings 
should  be  chastised.  I  shall  endeavor  properly  to  repress  them, 
although  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  be  altogether  extin- 
guished. We  must,  indeed,  fly  beyond  the  civilized  world ;  we 
must  pass  the  dominion  of  law  and  the  boundaries  of  knowl- 
edge ;  we  must,  more  especially,  withdraw  ourselves  from  this 
place,  and  the  scenes  and  objects  which  here  surround  us, — if  we 
would  separate  ourselves  entirely  from  the  influence  of  all  those 
memorials  of  herself  which  ancient  Greece  has  transmitted  for 
the  admiration  and  the  benefit  of  mankind.  This  free  form  of 
government,  this  popular  assembly,  the  common  council  held  for 
the  common  good,  —  where  have  we  contemplated  its  earliest 
models?  This  practice  of  free  debate  and  pubb'c  discussion, 
the  contest  of  mind  with  mind,  and  that  popular  eloquence, 
which,  if  it  were  now  here,  on  a  subject  like  this,  would  move 
the  stones  of  the  Capitol,  —  whose  was  the  language  in  which 
all  these  were  first  exhibited  ?  Even  the  edifice  in  which  we 
assemble,  these  proportioned  columns,  this  ornamented  archi- 
tecture, all  remind  us  that  Greece  has  existed,  and  that  we,  like 
the  rest  of  mankind,  are  greatly  her  debtors.* 

But  I  have  not  introduced  this  motion  in  the  vain  hope  of 
discharging  any  thing  of  this  accumulated  debt  of  centuries.  I 
have  not  acted  upon  the  expectation,  that  we,  who  have  inher- 
ited this  obligation  from  our  ancestors,  should  now  attempt  to 
pay  it  to  those  who  may  seem  to  have  inherited  from  their  an- 

*  The  interior  of  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  is  surrounded  by  a 
magnificent  cc 'onnade  of  the  composite  order. 

VOL.  III.  6 


62 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 


T 
r 


cestors  a  right  to  receive  payment.  My  object  is  nearer  and 
more  immediate.  I  wish  to  take  occasion  of  the  struggle  of  an 
interesting  and  gallant  people,  in  the  cause  of  liberty  and  Chris- 
tianity, to  draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  circumstances 
which  have  accompanied  that  struggle,  and  to  the  principles 
which  appear  to  have  governed  the  conduct  of  the  great  states 
of  Europe  in  regard  to  it ;  and  to  the  effects  and  consequences 
of  these  principles  upon  the  independence  of  nations,  and  espe- 
cially upon  the  institutions  of  free  governments.  What  I  have 

say  of  Greece,  therefore,  concerns  the  modern,  not  the  ancient ; 

e  living,  and  not  the  dead.  It  regards  her,  not  as  she  exists  in 
history,  triumphant  over  time,  and  tyranny,  and  ignorance ;  but 
as  she  now  is,  contending,  against  fearful  odds,  for  being,  and 
for  the  common  privileges  of  human  nature. 

As  it  is  never  difficult  to  recite  commonplace  remarks  and 
trite  aphorisms,  so  it  may  be  easy,  I  am  aware,  on  this  occa- 
sion, to  remind  me  of  the  wisdom  which  dictates  to  men  a  care 
of  their  own  affairs,  and  admonishes  them,  instead  of  searching 
for  adventures  abroad,  to  leave  other  men's  concerns  in  their 
own  hands.  It  may  be  easy  to  call  this  resolution  Quixotic,  the 
emanation  of  a  crusading  or  propagandist  spirit.  All  this,  and 
more,  may  be  readily  said ;  but  all  this,  and  more,  will  not  be 
allowed  to  fix  a  character  upon  this  proceeding,  until  that  is 
proved  which  it  takes  for  granted.  Let  it  first  be  shown,  that 
in  this  question  there  is  nothing  which  can  affect  the  interest, 
the  character,  or  the  duty  of  this  country.  Let  it  be  proved,  that 
we  are  not  called  upon,  by  either  of  these  considerations,  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  on  the  subject  to  which  the  resolution  relates. 
Let  this  be  proved,  and  then  it  will  indeed  be  made  out,  that 
neither  ought  this  resolution  to  pass,  nor  ought  the  subject  of  it 
to  have  been  mentioned  in  the  communication  of  the  President 
to  us.  But,  in  my  opinion,  this  cannot  be  shown.  In  my  judg- 
ment, the  subject  is  interesting  to  the  people  and  the  govern- 
ment of  this  country,  and  we  are  called  upon,  by  considerations 
of  great  weight  and  moment,  to  express  our  opinions  upon  it. 
These  considerations,  I  think,  spring  from  a  sense  of  our  own 
duty,  our  character,  and  our  own  interest.  I  wish  to  treat  the 
subject  on  such  grounds,  exclusively,  as  are  truly  American;  but 
then,  in  considering  it  as  an  American  question,  I  cannot  forget 
*he  age  hi  which  we  live,  the  prevailing  spirit  of  the  age,  the  in- 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  63 

teresting  questions  which  agitate  it,  and  our  own  peculiar  rela- 
tion in  regard  to  these  interesting  questions.  Let  this  be,  then,  7 
and  as  far  as  I  am  concerned  I  hope  it  will  be,  purely  an  Ameri- 
can discussion  ;  but  let  it  embrace,  nevertheless,  every  thing  that 
fairly  concerns  America.  Let  it  comprehend,  net  merely  her 
present  advantage,  but  her  permanent  interest,  her  elevated 
character  as  one  of  the  free  states  of  the  world,  and  her  duty 
towards  those  great  principles  which  have  hitherto  maintained 
the  relative  independence  of  nations,  and  which  have,  more  es- 
pecially, made  her  what  she  is. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  session,  the  President,  in  the 
discharge  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office,  called  our  attention  to 
the  subject  to  which  this  resolution  refers.  "  A  strong  hope," 
says  that  communication,  "  has  been  long  entertained,  founded 
on  the  heroic  struggle  of  the  Greeks,  that  they  would  succeed  in 
their  contest,  and  resume  their  equal  station  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth.  It  is  believed  that  the  whole  civilized  world  takes 
a  deep  interest  in  their  welfare.  Although  no  power  has  de- 
clared in  their  favor,  yet  none,  according  to  our  information,  has 
taken  part  against  them.  Their  cause  and  their  name  have 
protected  them  from  dangers  which  might  ere  this  have  over- 
whelmed any  other  people.  The  ordinary  calculations  of  inter- 
est, and  of  acquisition  with  a  view  to  aggrandizement,  which 
mingle  so  much  in  the  transactions  of  nations,  seem  to  have 
had  no  effect  in  regard  to  them.  From  the  facts  which  have 
come  to  our  knowledge,  there  is  good  cause  to  believe  that  their 
enemy  has  lost  for  ever  all  dominion  over  them ;  that  Greece  will 
become  again  an  independent  nation." 

It  has  appeared  to  me  that  the  House  should  adopt  some 
resolution  reciprocating  these  sentiments,  so  far  as  it  shall  ap- 
prove them.  More  than  twenty  years  have  elapsed  since  Con- 
gress first  ceased  to  receive  such  a  communication  from  the 
President  as  could  properly  be  made  the  subject  of  a  general  an- 
swer. I  do  not  mean  to  find  fault  with  this  relinquishment  of  a 
former  and  an  ancient  practice.  It  may  have  been  attended 
with  inconveniences  which  justified  its  abolition.  But,  certain- 
ly, there  was  one  advantage  belonging  to  it ;  and  that  is,  that  it 
furnished  a  fit  opportunity  for  the  expression  of  the  opinion  of 
the  houses  of  Congress  upon  those  topics  in  the  executive  com- 
munication which  were  not  expected  to  be  made  the  immediate 


64  THi!,  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

subjects  of  direct  legislation.  Since,  therefore,  the  President's 
message  does  not  now  receive  a  general  answer,  it  has  seemed 
to  me  to  be  proper  that,  in  some  mode,  agreeable  to  our  own 
usual  form  of  proceeding,  we  should  express  our  sentiments 
upon  the  important  and  interesting  topics  on  which  it  treats. 

If  the  sentiments  of  the  message  in  respect  to  Greece  be 
proper,  it  is  equally  proper  that  this  House  should  reciprocate 
those  sentiments.  The  present  resolution  is  designed  to  have 
that  extent,  and  no  more.  If  it  pass,  it  will  leave  any  future 
proceeding  where  it  now  is,  in  the  discretion  of  the  executive  gov- 
ernment. It  is  but  an  expression,  under  those  forms  in  which 
the  House  is  accustomed  to  act,  of  the  satisfaction  of  the  House 
with  the  general  sentiments  expressed  in  regard  to  this  subject 
in  the  message,  and  of  its  readiness  to  defray  the  expense  inci- 
dent to  any  inquiry  for  the  purpose  of  further  information,  or 
any  other  agency  which  the  President,  in  his  discretion,  shall  see 
fit,  in  whatever  manner  and  at  whatever  time,  to  institute.  The 
whole  matter  is  still  left  in  his  judgment,  and  this  resolution  can 
in  no  way  restrain  its  unlimited  exercise. 

I  might  well,  Mr.  Chairman,  avoid  the  responsibility  of  this 
measure,  if  it  had,  in  my  judgment,  any  tendency  to  change  the 
policy  of  the  country.  With  the  general  course  of  that  policy 
I  am  quite  satisfied.  The  nation  is  prosperous,  peaceful,  and 
happy ;  and  I  should  very  reluctantly  put  its  peace,  prosperity, 
or  happiness  at  risk.  It  appears  to  me,  however,  that  this  reso- 
lution is  strictly  conformable  to  our  general  policy,  and  not  only 
consistent  with  our  interests,  but  even  demanded  by  a  large  and 
liberal  view  of  those  interests. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  the  just  policy  of  this  country  is,  in  the 
first  place,  a  peaceful  policy.  No  nation  ever  had  less  to  expect 
from  forcible  aggrandizement.  The  mighty  agents  which  are 
working  out  our  greatness  are  time,  industry,  and  the  arts.  Our 
augmentation  is  by  growth,  not  by  acquisition ;  by  internal  de- 
velopment, not  by  external  accession.  No  schemes  can  be  sug- 
gested to  us  so  magnificent  as  the  prospects  which  a  sober  con- 
templation of  our  own  condition,  unaided  by  projects,  uninflu- 
enced by  ambition,  fairly  spreads  before  us.  A  country  of  such 
vast  extent,  with  such  varieties  of  soil  and  climate,  with  so  much 
public  spirit  and  private  enterprise,  with  a  population  increasing 
BO  much  beyond  former  example,  with  capacities  of  improve- 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  65 

ment  not  only  unapplied  or  unexhausted,  but  even,  in  a  great 
measure,  as  yet  unexplored, — so  free  in  its  institutions,  so  mild 
in  its  laws,  so  secure  in  the  title  it  confers  on  every  man  to  his 
own  acquisitions,  —  needs  nothing  but  time  and  peace  to  carry 
it  forward  to  almost  any  point  of  advancement 

In  the  next  place,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  policy  of  this 
country,  springing  from  the  nature  of  our  government  and  the 
spirit  of  all  our  institutions,  is,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  inteiest- 
ing  questions  which  agitate  the  present  age,  on  the  side  of  lib- 
eral and  enlightened  sentiments.  The  age  is  extraordinary ;  the 
spirit  that  actuates  it  is  peculiar  and  marked ;  and  our  own  re- 
lation to  the  times  we  live  in,  and  to  the  questions  which  in- 
terest them,  is  equally  marked  and  peculiar.  We  are  placed,  by 
our  good  fortune  and  the  wisdom  and  valor  of  our  ancestors,  in 
a  condition  in  which  we  can  act  no  obscure  part.  Be  it  for 
honor,  or  be  it  for  dishonor,  whatever  we  do  is  sure  to  attract  the 
observation  of  the  world.  As  one  of  the  free  states  among  the 
nations,  as  a  great  and  rapidly  rising  republic,  it  would  be  im- 
possible for  us,  if  we  were  so  disposed,  to  prevent  our  principles, 
our  sentiments,  and  our  example  from  producing  some  effect 
upon  the  opinions  and  hopes  of  society  throughout  the  civilized 
world.  It  rests  probably  with  ourselves  to  determine  whether 
the  influence  of  these  shall  be  salutary  or  pernicious. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  great  political  question  of  this 
age  is  that  between  absolute  and  regulated  governments.  The 
substance  of  the  controversy  is  whether  society  shall  have  any 
part  in  its  own  government.  Whether  the  form  of  government 
shall  be  that  of  limited  monarchy,  with  more  or  less  mixture  of 
hereditary  power,  or  wholly  elective  or  representative,  may  per- 
haps be  considered  as  subordinate.  The  main  controversy  ia 
between  that  absolute  rule,  which,  while  it  promises  to  govern 
well,  means,  nevertheless,  to  govern  without  control,  and  thai 
constitutional  system  which  restrains  sovereign  discretion,  and 
asserts  that  society  may  claim  as  matter  of  right  some  effective 
power  in  the  establishment  of  the  laws  which  are  to  regulate  it 
The  spirit  of  the  times  sets  with  a  most  powerful  current  in  fa- 
vor of  these  last-mentioned  opinions.  It  is  opposed,  however 
whenever  and  wherever  it  shows  itself,  by  certain  of  the  great 
potentates  of  Europe ;  and  it  is  opposed  on  grounds  as  appli- 
cable in  one  civilized  nation  as  in  another,  and  which  would 
6* 


66  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

justify  such  opposition  in  relation  to  the  United  States,  as  well 
as  in  relation  to  any  other  state  or  nation,  if  time  and  circum- 
stances should  render  such  opposition  expedient. 

What  part  it  becomes  this  country  to  take  on  a  question  of 
this  sort,  so  far  as  it  is  called  upon  to  take  any  part,  cannot  be 
doubtful.  Our  side  of  this  question  is  settled  for  us,  even  with- 
out our  own  volition.  Our  history,  our  situation,  our  character, 
necessarily  decide  our  position  and  our  course,  before  we  harve 
even  time  to  ask  whether  we  have  an  option.  Our  place  is  'on 
the  side  of  free  institutions.  From  the  earliest  settlement  of 
these  States,  their  inhabitants  were  accustomed,  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree,  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  powers  of  self-government ; 
and  for  the  last  half-century  they  have  sustained  systems  of  gov- 
ernment entirely  representative,  yielding  to  themselves  the  great- 
est possible  prosperity,  and  not  leaving  them  without  distinction 
and  respect  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  This  system  we 
are  not  likely  to  abandon ;  and  while  we  shall  no  farther  recom 
mend  its  adoption  to  other  nations,  in  whole  or  in  part,  than  it 
may  recommend  itself  by  its  visible  influence  on  our  own  growth 
and  prosperity,  we  are,  nevertheless,  interested  to  resist  the  es- 
tablishment of  doctrines  which  deny  the  legality  <3f  its  founda- 
tions. We  stand  as  an  equal  among  nations,  claiming  the  full 
benefit  of  the  established  international  law ;  and  it  is  our  duty 
to  oppose,  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  moment,  any  innova- 
tions upon  that  code  which  shall  bring  into  doubt  or  question 
our  own  equal  and  independent  rights. 

I  will  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  advert  to  those  pretensions  put 
forth  by  the  allied  sovereigns  of  Continental  Europe,  which  seem 
to  me  calculated,  if  unresisted,  to  bring  into  disrepute  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  government,  and,  indeed,  to  be  wholly  incompatible 
with  any  degree  of  national  independence.  I  do  not  introduce 
these  considerations  for  the  sake  of  topics.  I  am  not  about  to 
declaim  against  crowned  heads,  nor  to  quarrel  with  any  country 
for  preferring  a  form  of  government  different  from  our  own. 
The  right  of  choice  that  we  exercise  for  ourselves,  I  am  quite 
willing  to  leave  also  to  others.  But  it  appears  to  me  that  the 
pretensions  to  which  I  have  alluded  are  wholly  inconsistent  with 
the  independence  of  nations  generally,  without  regard  to  the 
question  whether  their  governments  be  absolute,  monarchical 
and  limited,  or  purely  popular  and  representative.  I  have  a 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN   GREECE.  67 

most  deep  and  thorough  conviction,  that  a  new  era  has  arisen 
in  the  world,  that  new  and  dangerous  combinations  are  taking 
place,  promulgating  doctrines  and  fraught  with  consequences 
wholly  subversive  in  their  tendency  of  the  public  law  of  nations 
and  of  the  general  liberties  of  mankind.  Whether  this  be  so,  or 
not,  is  the  question  which  I  now  propose  to  examine,  upon  such 
grounds  of  information  as  are  afforded  by  the  common  and  pub- 
lic means  of  knowledge. 

Every  body  knows  that,  since  the  final  restoration  of  the 
Bourbons  to  the  throne  of  France,  the  Continental  powers  have 
entered  into  sundry  alliances,  which  have  been  made  public,  and 
have  held  several  meetings  or  congresses,  at  which  the  principles 
of  their  political  conduct  have  been  declared.  These  things 
must  necessarily  have  an  effect  upon  the  international  law  of 
the  states  of  the  world.  If  that  effect  be  good,  and  according  to 
the  principles  of  that  law,  they  deserve  to  be  applauded.  If,  on 
the  contrary,  their  effect  and  tendency  be  most  dangerous,  their 
principles  wholly  inadmissible,  their  pretensions  such  as  would 
abolish  every  degree  of  national  independence,  then  they  are  to 
be  resisted. 

I  begin,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  drawing  your  attention  to  the 
treaty  concluded  at  Paris  in  September,  1815,  between  Russia, 
Prussia,  and  Austria,  commonly  called  the  Holy  Alliance.  This 
singular  alliance  appears  to  have  originated  with  the  Emperor 
of  Russia ;  for  we  are  informed  that  a  draft  of  it  was  exhibited 
by  him,  personally,  to  a  plenipotentiary  of  one  of  the  great  pow- 
ers of  Europe,  before  it  was  presented  to  the  other  sovereigns 
who  ultimately  signed  it*  This  instrument  professes  nothing, 
certainly,  which  is  not  extremely  commendable  and  praisewor- 
thy. It  promises  only  that  the  contracting  parties,  both  in  rela- 
tion to  other  states,  and  in  regard  to  their  own  subjects,  will 
observe  the  rules  of  justice  and  Christianity.  In  confirmation 
of  these  promises,  it  makes  the  most  solemn  and  devout  religious 
invocations.  Now,  although  such  an  alliance  is  a  novelty  in 
European  history,  the  world  seems  to  have  received  this  treaty, 
upon  its  first  promulgation,  with  general  charity.  It  was  com- 
monly understood  as  little  or  nothing  more  than  an  expression 

*  See  Lord  Castlereagh's  speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  February  3,  1816. 
Debates  in  Parliament,  Vol.  XXXVI.  p.  355 ;  where  also  the  treaty  may  be 
found  at  fength. 


68  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

of  thanks  for  the  successful  termination  of  the  momentous  con- 
test in  which  those  sovereigns  had  been  engaged.  It  still  seems 
somewhat  unaccountable,  however,  that  these  good  resolutions 
should  require  to  be  confirmed  by  treaty.  Who  doubted  that 
these  august  sovereigns  would  treat  each  other  with  justice,  and 
rule  their  own  subjects  in  mercy?  And  what  necessity  was 
there  for  a  solemn  stipulation  by  treaty,  to  insure  the  perform- 
ance of  that  which  is  no  more  than  the  ordinary  duty  of  every 
government?  It  would  hardly  be  admitted  by  these  sovereigns, 
that  by  this  compact  they  consider  themselves  bound  to  intro- 
duce an  entire  change,  or  any  change,  in  the  course  of  their  own 
conduct.  Nothing  substantially  new,  certainly,  can  be  supposed 
to  have  been  intended.  What  principle,  or  what  practice,  there- 
fore, called  for  this  solemn  declaration  of  the  intention  of  the 
parties  to  observe  the  rules  of  religion  and  justice  ? 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  a  writer  of  reputation  upon 
the  Public  Law,  described,  many  years  ago,  not  inaccurately, 
the  character  of  this  alliance.  I  allude  to  PufFendorf.  "  It  seems 
useless,"  says  he,  "  to  frame  any  pacts  or  leagues,  barely  for  the 
defence  and  support  of  universal  peace ;  for  by  such  a  league 
nothing  is  superadded  to  the  obligation  of  natural  law,  and  no 
agreement  is  made  for  the  performance  of  any  thing  which  the 
parties  were  not  previously  bound  to  perform ;  nor  is  the  origi- 
nal obligation  rendered  firmer  or  stronger  by  such  an  addition. 
Men  of  any  tolerable  culture  and  civilization  might  well  be 
a*shamed  of  entering  into  any  such  compact,  the  conditions  of 
which  imply  only  that  the  parties  concerned  shall  not  offend  in 
any  clear  point  of  duty.  Besides,  we  should  be  guilty  of  great 
irreverence  towards  God,  should  we  suppose  that  his  injunctions 
had  not  already  laid  a  sufficient  obligation  upon  us  to  act  justly, 
unless  we  ourselves  voluntarily  consented  to  the  same  engage- 
ment ;  as  if  our  obligation  to  obey  his  will  depended  upon  our 
own  pleasure. 

"  If  one  engage  to  serve  another,  he  does  not  set  it  down  ex- 
pressly and  particularly  among  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
bargain,  that  he  will  not  betray  nor  murder  him,  nor  pillage  nor 
burn  his  house.  For  the  same  reason,  that  would  be  a  dishonor- 
able engagement,  in  which  men  should  bind  themselves  to  act 
properly  and  decently,  and  not  break  the  peace."  * 

*  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,  Book  II.  cap.  2,  ^  11, 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  69 

Such  were  the  sentiments  of  that  eminent  writer.  How 
nearly  he  had  anticipated  the  case  of  the  Holy  Alliance  will 
appear  from  the  preamble  to  that  alliance.  After  stating  that 
the  allied  sovereigns  had  become  persuaded,  by  the  events  of  the 
last  three  years,  that  "  their  relations  with  eaeh  other  ought  to  be 
regulated  exclusively  by  the  sublime  truths  taught  by  the  eternal 
religion  of  God  the  Saviour,"  they  solemnly  declare  their  fixed 
resolution  "  to  adopt  as  the  sole  rule  of  their  conduct,  both  in  the 
administration  of  their  respective  states,  and  in  their  political 
relations  with  every  other  government,  the  precepts  of  that  holy 
religion,  namely,  the  precepts  of  justice,  charity,  and  peace, 
which,  far  from  being  applicable  to  private  life  alone,  ought, 
on  the  contrary,  to  have  a  direct  influence  upon  the  counsels  of 
princes,  and  guide  all  their  steps,  as  being  the  only  means  of 
consolidating  human  institutions,  and  remedying  their  imper- 
fections." * 

This  measure,  however,  appears  principally  important,  as  it 
was  the  first  of  a  series,  and  was  followed  afterwards  by  others 
of  a  more  marked  and  practical  nature.  These  measures,  taken 
together,  profess  to  establish  two  principles,  which  the  Allied 
Powers  would  introduce  as  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  civilized 
world ;  and  the  establishment  of  which  is  to  be  enforced  by  a 
million  and  a  half  of  bayonets. 

The  first  of  these  principles  is,  that  all  popular  or  constitutional 
rights  are  held  no  otherwise  than  as  grants  from  the  crown. 
Society,  upon  this  principle,  has  no  rights  of  its  own ;  it  takes 
good  government,  when  it  gets  it,  as  a  boon  and  a  concession, 
but  can  demand  nothing.  It  is  to  live  by  that  favor  which  ema- 
nates from  royal  authority,  and  if  it  have  the  misfortune  to  lose 
that  favor,  there  is  nothing  to  protect  it  against  any  degree  of 
injustice  and  oppression.  It  can  rightfully  make  no  endeavor 
for  a  change,  by  itself;  its  whole  privilege  is  to  receive  the  favors 
that  may  be  dispensed  by  the  sovereign  power,  and  all  its  duty 
is  described  in  the  single  word  submission.  This  is  the  plain 
result  of  the  principal  Continental  state  papers ;  indeed,  it  is 
nearly  the  identical  text  of  some  of  them. 

The  circular  despatch  addressed  by  the  sovereigns  assembled 
at  Laybach,  in  the  spring  of  1821,  to  their  ministers  at  foreign 
courts,  alleges,  "that  useful  and  necessary  changes  in  legislation 

*  Martens,  Recueil  des  Traites,  Tome  XIII.  p.  656. 


70  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

and  in  the  administration  of  states  ought  only  to  emanate  from 
the  free  will  and  intelligent  and  well-weighed  conviction  of 
those  whom  God  has  rendered  responsible  for  power.  All  that 
deviates  from  this  line  necessarily  leads  to  disorder,  commotions, 
and  evils  far  more  insufferable  than  those  which  they  pretend  to 
remedy."  *  Now,  Sir,  this  principle  would  carry  Europe  back 
again,  at  once,  into  tKe  middle  of  the  Dark  Ages.  It  is  the  old 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  right  of  kings,  advanced  now  by  new 
advocates,  and  sustained  by  a  formidable  array  of  power.  That 
the  people  hold  their  fundamental  privileges  as  matter  of  con- 
cession or  indulgence  from  the  sovereign  power,  is  a  sentiment 
not  easy  to  be  diffused  in  this  age,  any  farther  than  it  is  enforced 
by  the  direct  operation  of  military  means.  It  is  true,  certainly, 
that  some  six  centuries  ago  the  early  founders  of  English  lib- 
erty called  the  instrument  which  secured  their  rights  a  charter. 
It  was,  indeed,  a  concession;  they  had  obtained  it  sword  in 
hand  from  the  king ;  and  in  many  other  cases,  whatever  was  ob- 
tained, favorable  to  human  rights,  from  the  tyranny  and  despot- 
ism of  the  feudal  sovereigns,  was  called  by  the  names  of  privi- 
leges and  liberties,  as  being  matter  of  special  favor.  Though 
we  retain  this  language  at  the  present  time,  the  principle  itself 
belongs  to  ages  that  have  long  passed  by  us.  The  civilized 
world  has  done  with  "  the  enormous  faith,  of  many  made  for 
one."  Society  asserts  its  own  rights,  and  alleges  them  to  be 
original,  sacred,  and  unalienable.  It  is  not  satisfied  with  having 
kind  masters;  it.  demands  a  participation  in  its  own  govern- 
ment ;  and  in  states  much  advanced  in  civilization,  it  urges  this 
demand  with  a  constancy  and  an  energy  that  cannot  well  nor 
long  be  resisted.  There  are,  happily,  enough  of  regulated  gov- 
ernments in  the  world,  and  those  among  the  most  distinguished, 
to  operate  as  constant  examples,  and  to  keep  alive  an  unceasing 
panting  in  the  bosoms  of  men  for  the  enjoyment  of  similar  free 
institutions. 

When  the  English  Revolution  of  1688  took  place,  the  Eng- 
lish people  did  not  content  themselves  with  the  example  of 
Runnymede ;  they  did  not  build  their  hopes  upon  royal  charters ; 
they  did  not,  like  the  authors  of  the  Laybach  circular,  suppose 
that  all  useful  changes  in  constitutions  and  laws  must  proceed 
from  those  only  whom  God  has  rendered  responsible  for  power. 

*  Annual  Register  for  1821,  p.  601. 


THE   REVOLUTION   IN  GREECE.  71 

They  were  somewhat  better  instructed  in  the  principles  of  civil 
liberty,  or  at  least  they  were  better  lovers  of  those  principles 
than  the  sovereigns  of  Laybach.  Instead  of  petitioning  for 
charters,  they  declared  their  rights,  and  while  they  offered  to  the 
Prince  of  Orange  the  crown  with  one  hand,  they  held  in  the 
other  an  enumeration  of  those  privileges  which  they  did  not 
profess  to  hold  as  favors,  but  which  they  demanded  and  insisted 
upon  as  their  undoubted  rights. 

I  need  not  stop  to  observe,  Mr.  Chairman,  how  totally  hostile 
are  these  doctrines  of  Laybach  to  the  fundamental  principles  of 
our  government.  They  are  in  direct  contradiction ;  the  princi- 
ples of  good  and  evil  are  hardly  more  opposite.  If  these  prin- 
ciples of  the  sovereigns  be  true,  we  are  but  in  a  state  of  rebel- 
lion or  of  anarchy,  and  are  only  tolerated  among  civilized  states 
because  it  has  not  yet  been  convenient  to  reduce  us  to  the  true 
standard. 

But  the  second,  and,  if  possible,  the  still  more  objectionable 
principle,  avowed  in  these  papers,  is  the  right  of  forcible  inter- 
ference in  the  affairs  of  other  states.  A  right  to  control  nations 
in  then-  desire  to  change  their  own  government,  wherever  it  may 
be  conjectured,  or  pretended,  that  such  change  might  furnish  an 
example  to  the  subjects  of  other  states,  is  plainly  and  distinctly 
asserted.  The  same  Congress  that  made  the  declaration  at 
Laybach  had  declared,  before  its  removal  from  Troppau,  "  that 
the  powers  have  an  undoubted  right  to  take  a  hostile  attitude  in 
regard  to  those  states  in  which  the  overthrow  of  the  government 
may  operate  as  an  example." 

There  cannot,  as  I  think,  be  conceived  a  more  flagrant  viola- 
tion of  public  law,  or  national  independence,  than  is  contained 
in  this  short  declaration. 

No  matter  what  be  the  character  of  the  government  resisted ; 
no  matter  with  what  weight  the  foot  of  the  oppressor  bears  on 
the  neck  of  the  oppressed ;  if  he  struggle,  or  if  he  complain,  he 
sets  a  dangerous  example  of  resistance,  —  and  from  that  mo- 
ment he  becomes  an  object  of  hostility  to  the  most  powerful 
potentates  of  the  earth.  I  want  words  to  express  my  abhorrence 
of  this  abominable  principle.  I  trust  every  enlightened  man 
throughout  the  world  will  oppose  it,  and  that,  especially,  those 
who,  like  ourselves,  are  fortunately  out  of  the  reach  of  the  bay- 
onets that  enforce  it,  will  proclaim  their  detestation  of  it,  in  a 


72  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

tone  both  loud  and  decisive.  The  avowed  object  of  such  decla- 
rations is  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  world.  But  by  what 
means  is  it  proposed  to  preserve  this  peace  ?  Simply,  by  bring- 
ing the  power  of  all  governments  to  bear  against  all  subjects. 
Here  is  to  be  established  a  sort  of  double,  or  treble,  or  quadru- 
ple, or,  for  aught  I  know,  quintuple  allegiance.  An  offence 
against  one  king  is  to  be  an  offence  against  all  kings,  and  the 
power  of  all  is  to  be  put  forth  for  the  punishment  of  the  offend- 
er. A  right  to  interfere  in  extreme  cases,  in  the  case  of  contig 
uous  states,  and  where  imminent  danger  is  threatened  to  one 
by  what  is  occurring  in  another,  is  not  without  precedent  in 
modern  times,  upon  what  has  been  called  the  law  of  vicinage ; 
and  when  confined  to  extreme  cases,  and  limited  to  a  certain 
extent,  it  may  perhaps  be  defended  upon  principles  of  neces- 
sity and  self-defence.  But  to  maintain  that  sovereigns  may 
go  to  war  upon  the  subjects  of  another  state  to  repress  an  exam- 
ple, is  monstrous  indeed.  What  is  to  be  the  limit  to  such  a 
principle,  or  to  the  practice  growing  out  of  it  ?  What,  in  any 
case,  but  sovereign  pleasure,  is  to  decide  whether  the  example  be 
good  or  bad  ?  And  what,  under  the  operation  of  such  a  rule, 
may  be  thought  of  our  example  ?  Why  are  we  not  as  fair 
objects  for  the  operation  of  the  new  principle,  as  any  of  those 
who  may  attempt  a  reform  of  government  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Atlantic? 

The  ultimate  effect  of  this  alliance  of  sovereigns,  for  objects 
personal  to  themselves,  or  respecting  only  the  permanence  of 
their  own  power,  must  be  the  destruction  of  all  just  feeling,  and 
all  natural  sympathy,  between  those  who  exercise  the  power  of 
government  and  those  who  are  subject  to  it.  The  old  channels 
of  mutual  regard  and  confidence  are  to  be  dried  up,  or  cut  off. 
Obedience  can  now  be  expected  no  longer  than  it  is  enforced. 
Instead  of  relying  on  the  affections  of  the  governed,  sovereigns 
are  to  rely  on  the  affections  and  friendship  of  other  sovereigns. 
There  are,  in  short,  no  longer  to  be  nations.  Princes  and  people 
are  no  longer  to  unite  for  interests  common  to  them  both.  There 
is  to  be  an  end  of  all  patriotism,  as  a  distinct  national  feeling. 
Society  is  to  be  divided  horizontally ;  all  sovereigns  above,  and 
all  subjects  below ;  the  former  coalescing  for  their  own  security, 
and  for  the  more  certain  subjection  of  the  undistinguished  mul- 
titude beneath.  This,  Sir,  is  no  picture  drawn  by  imagination. 


THE   REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  73 

I  have  hardly  used  language  stronger  than  that  in  which  the 
authors  of  this  new  system  have  commented  on  their  own  work. 
M.  de  Chateaubriand,  in  his  speech  in  the  French  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  in  February  last,  declared,  that  he  had  a  conference 
with  the  Emperor  of  Russia  at  Verona,  in  which  that  august 
sovereign  uttered  sentiments  which  appeared  to  him  so  precious, 
that  he  immediately  hastened  home,  and  wrote  them  down  while 
yet  fresh  in  his  recollection.  "  The  Emperor  declared,"  said  he, 
"  that  there  can  no  longer  be  such  a  thing  as  an  English,  French, 
Russian,  Prussian,  or  Austrian  policy;  there  is  henceforth  but 
one  policy,  which,  for  the  safety  of  all,  should  be  adopted  both 
by  people  and  kings.  It  was  for  me  first  to  show  myself  con- 
vinced of  the  principles  upon  which  I  founded  the  alliance ;  an 
occasion  offered  itself,  —  the  rising  in  Greece.  Nothing  certainly 
could  occur  more  for  my  interests,  for  the  interests  of  my  peo- 
ple; nothing  more  acceptable  to  my  country,  than  a  religious 
war  in  Turkey.  Bat  I  have  thought  I  perceived  in  the  troubles 
of  the  Morea  the  sign  of  revolution,  and  I  have  held  back. 
Providence  has  not  put  under  my  command  eight  hundred 
thousand  soldiers  to  satisfy  my  ambition,  but  to  protect  relig- 
ion, morality,  and  justice,  and  to  secure  the  prevalence  of  those 
principles  of  order  on  which  human  society  rests.  It  may  well 
be  permitted,  that  kings  may  have  public  alliances  to  defend 
themselves  against  secret  enemies." 

These,  Sir,  are  the  words  which  the  French  minister  thought 
so  important  that  they  deserved  to  be  recorded;  and  I,  too, 
Sir,  am  of  the  same  opinion.  But  if  it  be  true  that  there  is 
hereafter  to  be  neither  a  Russian  policy,  nor  a  Prussian  policy, 
nor  an  Austrian  policy,  nor  a  French  policy,  nor  even,  which  yet 
I  will  not  believe,  an  English  policy,  there  will  be,  I  trust  in 
God,  an  American  policy.  If  the  authority  of  all  these  govern- 
ments be  hereafter  to  be  mixed  and  blended,  and  to  flow,  in  one 
augmented  current  of  prerogative,  over  the  face  of  Europe, 
sweeping  away  all  resistance  in  its  course,  it  will  yet  remain  for 
us  to  secure  our  own  happiness  by  the  preservation  of  our  own 
principles ;  which  I  hope  we  shah1  have  the  manliness  to  express 
on  all  proper  occasions,  and  the  spirit  to  defend  in  every  extrem- 
ity. The  end  and  scope  of  this  amalgamated  policy  are  neither 
more  nor  less  than  this,  to  interfere,  by  force,  for  any  govern- 
ment, against  any  people  who  may  resist  it.  Be  the  state  of  the 

VOL.  III.  7 


74  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

people  what  it  may,  they  shall  not  rise ;   be  the  government 
what  it  will,  it  shall  not  be  opposed. 

The  practical  commentary  has  corresponded  with  the  plain 
language  of  the  text.  Look  at  Spain,  and  at  Greece.  If  men 
may  not  resist  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  and  the  Turkish  cimeter, 
what  is  there  to  which  humanity  must  not  submit  ?  Stronger 
cases  can  never  arise.  Is  it  not  proper  for  us,  at  all  times,  is  it 
not  our  duty,  at  this  time,  to  come  forth,  and  deny,  and  con- 
demn, these  monstrous  principles  ?  Where,  but  here,  and  in  one 
other  place,  are  they  likely  to  be  resisted  ?  They  are  advanced 
with  equal  coolness  and  boldness ;  and  they  are  supported  by 
immense  power.  The  timid  will  shrink  and  give  way,  and  many 
of  the  brave  may  be  compelled  to  yield  to  force.  Human  liberty 
may  yet,  perhaps,  be  obliged  to  repose  its  principal  hopes  on  the 
intelligence  and  the  vigor  of  the  Saxon  race.  As  far  as  depends 
on  us,  at  least,  I  trust  those  hopes  will  not  be  disappointed ;  and 
that,  to  the  extent  which  may  consist  with  our  own  settled,  pa- 
cific policy,  our  opinions  and  sentiments  may  be  brought  to  act 
on  the  right  side,  and  to  the  right  end,  on  an  occasion  which  is, 
in  truth,  nothing  less  than  a  momentous  question  between  an 
intelligent  age,  full  of  knowledge,  thirsting  for  improvement, 
and  quickened  by  a  thousand  impulses,  on  one  side,  and  the 
most  arbitrary  pretensions,  sustained  by  unprecedented  power, 
on  the  other. 

This  asserted  right  of  forcible  intervention  in  the  affairs  of 
other  nations  is  in  open  violation  of  the  public  law  of  the  world 
Who  has  authorized  these  learned  doctors  of  Troppau  to  estab- 
lish new  articles  in  this  code  ?  Whence  are  their  diplomas  ?  Is 
the  whole  world  expected  to  acquiesce  in  principles  which  en- 
tirely subvert  the  independence  of  nations  ?  On  the  basis  of 
this  independence  has  been  reared  the  beautiful  fabric  of  inter- 
national law.  On  the  principle  of  this  independence,  Europe 
has  seen  a  family  of  nations  flourishing  within  its  limits,  the 
small  among  the  large,  protected  not  always  by  power,  but  by  a 
principle  above  power,  by  a  sense  of  propriety  and  justice.  On 
this  principle,  the  great  commonwealth  of  civilized  states  has 
been  hitherto  upheld.  There  have  been  occasional  departures 
or  violations,  and  always  disastrous,  as  in  the  case  of  Poland ; 
but,  in  general,  the  harmony  of  the  system  has  been  wonderfully 
preserved.  In  the  production  and  preservation  of  this  sense  of 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  75 

justice,  this  predominating  principle,  the  Christian  religion  hap 
acted  a  main  part.  Christianity  and  civilization  have  labored 
together;  it  seems,  indeed,  to  be  a  law  of  our  human  condition, 
that  they  can  live  and  flourish  only  together.  From  their  blend- 
ed influence  has  arisen  that  delightful  spectacle  of  the  prevalence 
of  reason  and  principle  over  power  and  interest,  so  well  described 
by  one  who  was  an  honor  to  the  age ;  — 

"  And  sovereign  Law,  the  state's  collected  will, 

O'er  thrones  and  globes  elate, 
Sits  empress,  —  crowning  good,  repressing  ill: 

Smit  by  her  sacred  frown, 
The  fiend,  Discretion,  like  a  vapor,  sinks, 

And  e'en  the  all-dazzling  crown 
Hides  his  faint  rays,  and  at  her  bidding  shrinks." 

But  this  vision  is  past.  While  the  teachers  of  Laybach  give 
the  rule,  there  will  be  no  law  but  the  law  of  the  strongest. 

It  may  now  be  required  of  me  to  show  what  interest  we  have 
in  resisting  this  new  system.  What  is  it  to  us,  it  may  be  asked, 
upon  what  principles,  or  what  pretences,  the  European  govern- 
ments assert  a  right  of  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  their  neigh- 
bors ?  The  thunder,  it  may  be  said,  rolls  at  a  distance.  The 
wide  Atlantic  is  between  us  and  danger;  and,  however  others- 
may  suffer,  we  shall  remain  safe. 

I  think  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  to  say,  that  we  are  one 
of  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  that  we  have  an  interest,  therefore, 
in  the  preservation  of  that  system  of  national  law  and  national 
intercourse  which  has  heretofore  subsisted,  so  beneficially  for  all. 
Our  system  of  government,  it  should  also  be  remembered,  is, 
throughout,  founded  on  principles  utterly  hostile  to  the  new 
code ;  and  if  we  remain  undisturbed  by  its  operation,  we  shall 
owe  our  security  either  to  our  situation  or  our  spirit.  The  en- 
terprising character  of  the  age,  our  own  active,  commercial  spirit, 
the  great  increase  which  has  taken  place  in  the  intercourse 
among  civilized  and  commercial  states,  have  necessarily  con- 
nected us  with  other  nations,  and  given  us  a  high  concern  in  the 
preservation  of  those  salutary  principles  upon  which  that  inter- 
course is  founded.  We  have  as  clear  an  interest  in  international 
law,  as  individuals  have  in  the  laws  of  society. 

But  apart  from  the  soundness  of  the  policy,  on  the  ground 
of  direct  interest,  we  have,  Sir.  a  duty  connected  with  this 


76  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

subject,  which  I  trust  we  are  willing  to  perform.  What  do  we 
not  owe  to  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  ?  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  lawful  resistance?  to  the  principle  that  society  has  a 
right  to  partake  in  its  own  government?  As  the  leading  re- 
public of  the  world,  living  and  breathing  in  these  principles,  and 
advanced,  by  their  operation,  with  unequalled  rapidity  in  our 
career,  shall  we  give  our  consent  to  bring  them  into  disrepute 
and  disgrace?  It  is  neither  ostentation  nor  boasting  to  say, 
that  there  lies  before  this  country,  in  immediate  prospect,  a  great 
extent  and  height  of  power.  We  are  borne  along  towards  this, 
without  effort,  and  not  always  even  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the 
rapidity  of  our  own  motion.  Circumstances  which  never  com- 
bined before  have  cooperated  in  our  favor,  and  a  mighty  current 
is  setting  us  forward  which  we  could  not  resist  even  if  we  would, 
and  which,  while  we  would  stop  to  make  an  observation,  and 
take  the  sun,  has  set  us,  at  the  end  of  the  operation,  far  in  ad- 
vance of  the  place  where  we  commenced  it.  Does  it  not  be- 
come us,  then,  is  it  not  a  duty  imposed  on  us,  to  give  our  weight 
to  the  bide  of  liberty  and  justice,  to  let  mankind  know  that  we 
are  not  tired  of  our  own  institutions,  and  to  protest  against  the 
asserted  power  of  altering  at  pleasure  the  law  of  the  civilized 
world  ? 

But  whatever  we  do  in  this  respect,  it  becomes  us  to  do  upon 
clear  and  consistent  principles.  There  is  an  important  topic  in 
the  message  to  which  I  have  yet  hardly  alluded.  I  mean  the 
rumored  combination  of  the  European  Continental  sovereigns 
against  the  newly  established  free  states  of  South  America. 
Whatever  position  this  government  may  take  on  that  subject,  I 
trust  it  will  be  one  which  can  be  defended  on  known  and  ac- 
knowledged grounds  of  right.  The  near  approach  or  the  remote 
distance  of  danger  may  affect  policy,  but  cannot  change  princi- 
ple. The  same  reason  that  would  authorize  us  to  protest  against 
unwarrantable  combinations  to  interfere  between  Spain  and  her 
former  colonies,  would  authorize  us  equally  to  protest,  if  the 
same  combination  were  directed  against  the  smallest  state  in 
Europe,  although  our  duty  to  ourselves,  our  policy,  and  wisdom, 
might  indicate  very  different  courses  as  fit  to  be  pursued  by  us 
:n  the  two  cases.  We  shall  not,  I  trust,  act  upon  the  notion  of 
dividing  the  world  with  the  Holy  Alliance,  and  complain  of 
nothing  done  by  them  in  their  hemisphere  if  they  will  not  inter- 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  77 

fere  with  ours.  At  least  this  would  not  be  such  a  course  of 
policy  as  I  could  recommend  or  support.  We  have  not  offended, 
and  I  hope  we  do  not  intend  to  offend,  in  regard  to  South 
America,  against  any  principle  of  national  independence  or  of 
public  law.  We  have  done  nothing,  we  shall  do  nothing,  that 
we  need  to  hush  up  or  to  compromise  by  forbearing  to  ex- 
press our  sympathy  for  the  cause  of  the  Greeks,  or  our  opinion 
of  the  course  which  other  governments  have  adopted  in  regard 
to  them. 

It  may,  in  the  next  place,  be  asked,  perhaps,  Supposing  all  this 
to  be  true,  what  can  we  do  ?  Are  we  to  go  to  war  ?  Are  we 
to  interfere  in  the  Greek  cause,  or  any  other  European  cause  ? 
Are  we  to  endanger  our  pacific  relations  ?  No,  certainly  not 
What,  then,  the  question  recurs,  remains  for  us  ?  If  we  will  not 
endanger  our  own  peace,  if  we  will  neither  furnish  armies  nor 
navies  to  the  cause  which  we  think  the  just  one,  what  is  there 
within  our  power  ? 

Sir,  this  reasoning  mistakes  the  age.  The  time  has  been,  in- 
deed, when  fleets,  and  armies,  and  subsidies,  were  the  principal 
reliances  even  in  the  best  cause.  But,  happily  for  mankind, 
a  great  change  has  taken  place  in  this  respect.  Moral  causes 
come  into  consideration,  in  proportion  as  the  progress  of  knowl- 
edge is  advanced ;  and  the  public  opinion  of  the  civilized  world 
is  rapidly  gaining  an  ascendency  over  mere  brutal  force.  It  is 
already  able  to  oppose  the  most  formidable  obstruction  to  the 
progress  of  injustice  and  oppression ;  and  as  it  grows  more  in- 
telligent and  more  intense,  it  will  be  more  and  more  formidable. 
It  may  be  silenced  by  military  power,  but  it  cannot  be  con- 
quered. It  is  elastic,  irrepressible,  and  invulnerable  to  the  weap- 
ons of  ordinary  warfare.  It  is  that  impassible,  unextinguishable 
enemy  of  mere  violence  and  arbitrary  rule,  which,  like  Milton's 
angels, 

"  Vital  in  every  part, 

Cannot,  but  by  annihilating,  die." 

Until  this  be  propitiated  or  satisfied,  it  is  vain  for  power  to 
taik  either  of  triumphs  or  of  repose.  No  matter  what  fields  are 
desolated,  what  fortresses  surrendered,  what  armies  subdued,  or 
what  provinces  overrun.  In  the  history  of  the  year  that  has 
pissed  by  us,  and  in  the  instance  of  unhappy  Spain,  we  have 
Been  the  vanity  of  all  triumphs  in  a  cause  which  violates  the 
7* 


78  THE  REVOLUTION   IN  GREECE. 

general  sense  of  justice  of  the  civilized  world.  It  is  nothing, 
that  the  troops  of  France  have  passed  from  the  Pyrenees  to 
Cadiz ;  it  is  nothing  that  an  unhappy  and  prostrate  nation  has 
fallen  before  them ;  it  is  nothing  that  arrests,  and  confiscation, 
and  execution,  sweep  away  the  little  remnant  of  national  resist- 
ance. There  is  an  enemy  that  still  exists  to  check  the  glory  of 
these  triumphs.  It  follows  the  conqueror  back  to  the  very  scene 
of  his  ovations ;  it  calls  upon  him  to  take  notice  that  Europe, 
though  silent,  is  yet  indignant ;  it  shows  him  that  the  sceptre  of 
his  victory  is  a  barren  sceptre :  that  it  shall  confer  neither  joy 
nor  honor,  but  shall  moulder  to  dry  ashes  in  his  grasp.  In 
the  midst  of  his  exultation,  it  pierces  his  ear  with  the  cry  of 
injured  justice ;  it  denounces  against  him  the  indignation  of 
an  enlightened  and  civilized  age;  it  turns  to  bitterness  the 
cup  of  his  rejoicing,  and  wounds  him  with  the  sting  which  be- 
longs to  the  consciousness  of  having  outraged  the  opinion  of 
mankind. 

In  my  opinion,  Sir,  the  Spanish  nation  is  now  nearer,  not 
only  in  point  of  time,  but  in  point  of  circumstance,  to  the  ac- 
quisition of  a  regulated  government,  than  at  the  moment  of 
the  French  invasion.  Nations  must,  no  doubt,  undergo  these 
trials  in  their  progress  to  the  establishment  of  free  institu- 
tions. The  very  trials  benefit  them,  and  render  them  more 
capable  both  of  obtaining  and  of  enjoying  the  object  which 
they  seek. 

I  shall  not  detain  the  committee,  Sir,  by  laying  before  it  any 
statistical,  geographical,  or  commercial,  account  of  Greece.  I 
have  no  knowledge  on  these  subjects  which  is  not  common  to 
all.  It  is  universally  admitted,  that,  within  the  last  thirty  or 
forty  years,  the  condition  of  Greece  has  been  greatly  improved. 
Her  marine  is  at  present  respectable,  containing  the  best  sailors 
in  the  Mediterranean,  better  even,  in  that  sea,  than  our  own,  as 
more  accustomed  to  the  long  quarantines  and  other  regulations 
which  prevail  in  its  ports.  The  number  of  her  seamen  has  been 
estimated  as  high  as  50,000,  but  I  suppose  that  estimate  must 
be  much  too  large.  She  has,  probably,  150,000  tons  of  ship- 
ping. It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  the  Greek 
population.  The  Turkish  government  does  not  trouble  itself 
with  any  of  the  calculations  of  political  economy,  and  there  has 
never  been  such  a  thing  as  an  accurate  census,  probably,  in  any 


THE  REVOLUTION   IN  GREECE.  79 

part  of  the  Turkish  empire.  In  the  absence  of  all  official  infor- 
mation, private  opinions  widely  differ.  By  the  tables  which 
have  been  communicated,  it  vrould  seem  that  there  are  2,400,000 
Greeks  in  Greece  proper  and  the  islands ;  an  amount,  as  I  am 
inclined  to  think,  somewhat  overrated.  There  are,  probably,  in 
the  whole  of  European  Turkey,  5,000,000  Greeks,  and  2,000,000 
more  in  the  Asiatic  dominions  of  that  power. 

The  moral  and  intellectual  progress  of  this  numerous  popula- 
tion, under  the  horrible  oppression  which  crushes  it,  has  been 
such  as  may  well  excite  regard.  Slaves,  under  barbarous  mas- 
ters, the  Greeks  have  still  aspired  after  the  blessings  of  knowl- 
edge and  civilization.  Before  the  breaking  out  of  the  present 
revolution,  they  had  established  schools,  and  colleges,  and  libra- 
ries, and  the  press.  Wherever,  as  in  Scio,  owing  to  particular 
circumstances,  the  weight  of  oppression  was  mitigated,  the  nat- 
ural vivacity  of  the  Greeks,  and  their  aptitude  for  the  arts,  were 
evinced.  Though  certainly  not  on  an  equality  with  the  civil- 
ized and  Christian  states  of  Europe,  —  and  how  is  it  possible, 
under  such  oppression  as  they  endured,  that  they  should  be?  — 
they  yet  furnished  a  striking  contrast  with  their  Tartar  masters. 
It  has  been  well  said,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  form  a  just  concep- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  despotism  exercised  over  them.  Con- 
quest and  subjugation,  as  known  among  European  states,  are 
inadequate  modes  of  expression  by  which  to  denote  the  domin- 
ion of  the  Turks.  A  conquest  in  the  civilized  world  is  generally 
no  more  than  an  acquisition  of  a  new  dominion  to  the  conquer- 
ing country.  It  does  not  imply  a  never-ending  bondage  imposed 
upon  the  conquered,  a  perpetual  mark,  —  an  opprobrious  distinc- 
tion between  them  and  their  masters;  a  bitter  and  unending 
persecution  of  their  religion  ;  an  habitual  violation  of  their  rights 
of  person  and  property,  and  the  unrestrained  indulgence  towards 
them  of  every  passion  which  belongs  to  the  character  of  a  bar- 
barous soldiery.  Yet  such  is  the  state  of  Greece.  The  Otto- 
man power  over  them,  obtained  originally  by  the  sword,  is 
constantly  preserved  by  the  same  means.  Wherever  it  exists,  it 
is  a  mere  military  power.  The  religious  and  civil  code  of  the 
state  being  both  fixed  in  the  Koran,  and  equally  the  object  of 
an  ignorant  and  furious  faith,  have  been  found  equally  incapable 
/f  change.  "  The  Turk,"  it  has  been  said,  "  has  been  encamped 
in  Europe  for  four  centuries."  He  has  hardly  any  more  partici- 


80  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

pation  in  European  manners,  knowledge,  and  arts,  than  when 
he  crossed  the  Bosphorus.  But  this  is  not  the  worst.  The 
power  of  the  empire  is  fallen  into  anarchy,  and  as  the  principle 
which  belongs  to  the  head  belongs  also  to  the  parts,  there  are  as 
many  despots  as  there  are  pachas,  beys,  and  viziers.  Wars  are 
almost  perpetual  between  the  Sultan  and  some  rebellious  gov- 
ernor of  a  province;  and  in  the  conflict  of  these  despotisms,  the 
people  are  necessarily  ground  between  the  upper  and  the  nether 
millstone.  In  short,  the  Christian  subjects  of  the  Sublime  Porte 
feel  daily  all  the  miseries  which  flow  from  despotism,  from  an- 
archy, from  slavery,  and  from  religious  persecution.  If  any 
thing  yet  remains  to  heighten  such  a  picture,  let  it  be  added, 
that  every  office  in  the  government  is  not  only  actually,  but  pro- 
fessedly, venal ;  the  pachalics,  the  vizierates,  the  cadiships,  and 
whatsoever  other  denomination  may  denote  the  depositary  of 
power.  In  the  whole  world,  Sir,  there  is  no  such  oppression 
felt  as  by  the  Christian  Greeks.  In  various  parts  of  India,  to 
be  sure,  the  government  is  bad  enough ;  but  then  it  is  the  gov- 
ernment of  barbarians  over  barbarians,  and  the  feeling  of  oppres- 
sion is,  of  course,  not  so  keen.  There  the  oppressed  are  perhaps 
not  better  than  their  oppressors ;  but  in  the  case  of  Greece,  there 
are  millions  of  Christian  men,  not  without  knowledge,  not  with- 
out refinement,  not  without  a  strong  thirst  for  all  the  pleasures 
of  civilized  life,  trampled  into  the  very  earth,  century  after  cen- 
tury, by  a  pillaging,  savage,  relentless  soldiery.  Sir,  the  case  is 
unique.  There  exists,  and  has  existed,  nothing  like  it.  The 
world  has  no  such  misery  to  show ;  there  is  no  case  in  which 
Christian  communities  can  be  called  upon  with  such  emphasis 
of  appeal. 

But  I  have  said  enough,  Mr.  Chairman,  indeed  I  need  have 
said  nothing,  to  satisfy  the  House,  that  it  must  be  some  new 
combination  of  circumstances,  or  new  views  of  policy  in  the  cab- 
inets of  Europe,  which  have  caused  this  interesting  struggle  not 
merely  to  be  regarded  with  indifference,  but  to  be  marked  with 
opprobrium.  The  very  statement  of  the  case,  as  a  contest  be- 
tween the  Turks  and  Greeks,  sufficiently  indicates  what  must  be 
the  feeling  of  every  individual,  and  every  government,  that  is 
not  biased  by  a  particular  interest,  or  a  particular  feeling,  to 
i asregard  the  dictates  of  justice  and  humanity. 

And  now,  Sir,  what  has  been  the  conduct  pursued  by  the  Al- 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  3] 

lied  Powers  in  regard  to  this  contest  ?  When  the  revolution 
broke  out,  the  sovereigns  were  assembled  in  congress  at  Lay- 
bach  ;  and  the  papers  of  that  assembly  sufficiently  manifest 
their  sentiments.  They  proclaimed  their  abhorrence  of  those 
"  criminal  combinations  which  had  been  formed  in  the  east- 
ern parts  of  Europe " ;  and,  although  it  is  possible  that  this 
denunciation  was  aimed,  more  particularly,  at  the  disturbances 
in  the  provinces  of  Wallachia  and  Moldavia,  yet  no  exception  is 
made,  from  its  general  terms,  in  favor  of  those  events  in  Greece 
which  were  properly  the  commencement  of  her  revolution,  and 
which  could  not  but  be  well  known  at  Laybach,  before  the  date 
of  these  declarations.  Now  it  must  be  remembered,  that  Rus- 
sia was  a  leading  party  in  this  denunciation  of  the  efforts  of  the 
Greeks  to  achieve  their  liberation ;  and  it  cannot  but  be  expected 
by  Russia-,  that  the  world  should  also  remember  what  part  she 
herself  has  heretofore  acted  in  the  same  concern.  It  is  notori- 
ous, that  within  the  last  half-century  she  has  again  and  again 
excited  the  Greeks  to  rebellion  against  the  Porte,  and  that  she 
has  constantly  kept  alive  in  them  the  hope  that  she  would,  one 
day,  by  her  own  great  power,  break  the  yoke  of  their  oppressor. 
Indeed,  the  earnest  attention  with  which  Russia  has  regarded 
Greece  goes  much  farther  back  than  to  the  time  I  have  men- 
tioned. Ivan  the  Third,  in  1482,  having  espoused  a  Grecian 
princess,  heiress  of  the  last  Greek  Emperor,  discarded  St.  George 
from  the  Russian  arms,  and  adopted  the  Greek  two-headed 
black  eagle,  which  has  continued  in  the  Russian  arms  to  the 
present  day.  In  virtue  of  the  same  marriage,  the  Russian  prin- 
ces claim  the  Greek  throne  as  their  inheritance. 

Under  Peter  the  Great,  the  policy  of  Russia  developed  itself 
more  fully.  In  1696,  he  rendered  himself  master  of  Azof,  and 
in  1698,  obtained  the  right  to  pass  the  Dardanelles,  and  to  main- 
tain, by  that  route,  commercial  intercourse  with  the  Mediter- 
ranean. He  had  emissaries  throughout  Greece,  and  particularly 
applied  himself  to  gain  the  clergy.  He  adopted  the  Labarum 
of  Constantine,  "  In  hoc  signo  vinces  " ;  and  medals  were  struck, 
with  the  inscription,  "  Petrus  I.  Russo-Graecorum  Imperator." 
In  whatever  new  direction  the  principles  of  the  Holy  Alliance 
may  now  lead  the  politics  of  Russia,  or  whatever  course  she 
may  suppose  Christianity  now  prescribes  to  her,  in  regard  to  the 
Greek  cause,  the  time  has  been  when  she  professed  to  be  con- 


82  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

tending  for  that  cause,  as  identified  with  Christianity.  The 
white  banner  under  which  the  soldiers  of  Peter  the  First  usually 
fought,  bore,  as  its  inscription,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Prince,  and 
for  our  country."  Relying  on  the  aid  of  the  Greeks,  in  his  war 
with  the  Porte,  he  changed  the  white  flag  to  red,  and  displayed 
on  it  the  words,  "  In  the  name  of  God,  and  for  Christianity." 
The  unfortunate  issue  of  this  war  is  well  known.  Though 
Anne  and  Elizabeth,  the  successors  of  Peter,  did  not  possess 
his  active  character,  they  kept  up  a  constant  communication 
with  Greece,  and  held  out  hopes  of  restoring  the  Greek  empire. 
Catharine  the  Second,  as  is  well  known,  excited  a  general  revolt 
in  1769.  A  Russian  fleet  appeared  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  a 
Russian  army  was  landed  in  the  Morea.  The  Greeks  in  the 
end  were  disgusted  at  being  expected  to  take  an  oath  of  alle- 
giance to  Russia,  and  the  Empress  was  disgusted  because  they 
refused  to  take  it.  In  1774,  peace  was  signed  between  Russia 
and  the  Porte,  and  the  Greeks  of  the  Morea  were  left  to  their 
fate.  By  this  treaty  the  Porte  acknowledged  the  independence 
of  the  khan  of  the  Crimea ;  a  preliminary  step  to  the  acquisition 
of  that  country  by  Russia.  It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark,  as  a 
circumstance  which  distinguished  this  from  most  other  diplo- 
matic transactions,  that  it  conceded  to  the  cabinet  of  St.  Peters- 
burg the  right  of  intervention  in  the  interior  affairs  of  Turkey, 
in  regard  to  whatever  concerned  the  religion  of  the  Greeks. 
The  cruelties  and  massacres  that  happened  to  the  Greeks  after 
the  peace  between  Russia  and  the  Porte,  notwithstanding  the 
general  pardon  which  had  been  stipulated  for  them,  need  not 
now  be  recited.  Instead  of  retracing  the  deplorable  picture,  it  is 
enough  to  say,  that  in  this  respect  the  past  is  justly  reflected  in 
the  present.  The  Empress  soon  after  invaded  and  conquered  the 
Crimea,  and  on  one  of  the  gates  of  Kerson,  its  capital,  caused  to 
be  inscribed,  "  The  road  to  Byzantium."  The  present  Emperor, 
on  his  accession  to  the  throne,  manifested  an  intention  to  adopt 
the  policy  of  Catharine  the  Second  as  his  own,  and  the  world 
lias  not  been  right  in  all  its  suspicions,  if  a  project  for  the  parti- 
tion of  Turkey  did  not  form  a  part  of  the  negotiations  of  Napo- 
leon and  Alexander  at  Tilsit. 

All  this  course  of  policy  seems  suddenly  to  be  changed.  Tur- 
key is  no  longer  regarded,  it  would  appear,  as  an  object  of  parti- 
tion 01  acquisition,  and  Greek  revolts  have  all  at  once  become 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  83 

according  to  the  declaration  of  Laybach,  "  criminal  combina- 
tions." The  recent  congress  at  Verona  exceeded  its  predeces- 
sor at  Laybach  in  its  denunciations  of  the  Greek  struggle.  In 
the  circular  of  the  14th  of  December,  1822,  it  declared  the  Gre- 
cian resistance  to  the  Turkish  power  to  be  rash  and  culpable, 
and  lamented  that  "  the  firebrand  of  rebellion  had  been  thrown 
into  the  Ottoman  empire."  This  rebuke  and  crimination  we 
know  to  have  proceeded  on  those  settled  principles  of  conduct 
which  the  Continental  powers  had  prescribed  for  themselves. 
The  sovereigns  saw,  as  well  as  others,  the  real  condition  of  the 
Greeks ;  they  knew  as  well  as  others  that  it  was  most  natural 
and  most  justifiable,  that  they  should  endeavor,  at  whatever 
hazard,  to  change  that  condition.  They  knew  that  they  them- 
selves, or  at  least  one  of  them,  had  more  than  once  urged  the 
Greeks  to  similar  efforts ;  that  they  themselves  had  thrown  the 
same  firebrand  into  the  midst  of  the  Ottoman  empire.  And 
yet,  so  much  does  it  seem  to  be  then*  fixed  object  to  discounte- 
nance whatsoever  threatens  to  disturb  the  actual  government  of 
any  country,  that,  Christians  as  they  were,  and  allied,  as  they 
professed  to  be,  for  purposes  most  important  to  human  happi- 
ness and  religion,  they  have  not  hesitated  to  declare  to  the 
world  that  they  have  wholly  forborne  to  exercise  any  compas- 
sion to  the  Greeks,  simply  because  they  thought  that  they  saw, 
in  the  struggles  of  the  Morea,  the  sign  of  revolution.  This, 
then,  is  corning  to  a  plain,  practical  result.  The  Grecian  revo- 
lution has  been  discouraged,  discountenanced,  and  denounced, 
solely  because  it  is  a  revolution.  Independent  of  all  inquiry  into 
the  reasonableness  of  its  causes  or  the  enormity  of  the  oppres- 
sion which  produced  it;  regardless  of  the  peculiar  claims  which 
Greece  possesses  upon  the  civilized  world ;  and  regardless  of 
what  has  been  their  own  conduct  towards  her  for  a  century ;  re- 
gardless of  the  interest  of  the  Christian  religion,  —  the  sover- 
eigns at  Verona  seized  upon  the  case  of  the  Greek  revolution 
as  one  above  all  others  calculated  to  illustrate  the  fixed  princi- 
ples of  their  policy.  The  abominable  rule  of  the  Porte  on  one 
side,  the  value  and  the  sufferings  of  the  Christian  Greeks  on  the 
other,  furnished  a  case  likely  to  convince  even  an  incredulous 
world  of  the  sincerity  of  the  professions  of  the  Allied  Powers. 
They  embraced  the  occasion  with  apparent  ardor:  and  the 
world,  I  trust,  is  satisfied. 


84  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

We  see  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  direct  and  actual  application 
of  that  system  which  I  have  attempted  to  describe.  We  see  it 
in  the  very  case  of  Greece.  We  learn,  authentically  and  indis- 
putably, that  the  Allied  Powers,  holding  that  all  changes  in  leg- 
islation and  administration  ought  to  proceed  from  kings  alone,, 
were  wholly  inexorable  to  the  sufferings  of  the  Greeks,  and  en- 
tirely hostile  to  their  success.  Now  it  is  upon  this  practical  re- 
sult of  the  principle  of  the  Continental  powers  that  I  wish  this 
House  to  intimate  its  opinion.  The  great  question  is  a  question 
of  principle.  Greece  is  only  the  signal  instance  of  the  applica- 
tion of  that  principle.  If  the  principle  be  right,  if  we  esteem  it 
conformable  to  the  law  of  nations,  if  we  have  nothing  to  say 
against  it,  or  if  we  deem  ourselves  unfit  to  express  an  opinion 
on  the  subject,  then,  of  course,  no  resolution  ought  to  pass.  IfJ 
on  the  other  hand,  we  see  in  the  declarations  of  the  Allied  Pow- 
ers principles  not  only  utterly  hostile  to  our  own  free  institu- 
tions, but  hostile  also  to  the  independence  of  all  nations,  and  al- 
together opposed  to  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  human 
nature ;  if,  in  the  instance  before  us,  we  see  a  most  striking  ex- 
position and  application  of  those  principles,  and  if  we  deem 
our  opinions  to  be  entitled  to  any  weight  in  the  estimation  of 
mankind,  —  then  I  think  it  is  our  duty  to  adopt  some  such 
measure  as  the  proposed  resolution. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  Sir,  that  as  early  as  July,  1821, 
Baron  Strogonoff,  the  Russian  minister  at  Constantinople,  rep- 
resented to  the  Porte,  that,  if  the  undistinguished  massacres  of 
the  Greeks,  both  of  such  as  were  in  open  resistance  and  of  those 
who  remained  patient  in  their  submission  were  continued,  and 
should  become  a  settled  habit,  they  would  give  just  cause  of 
war  against  the  Porte  to  all  Christian  states.  This  was  in 
1821.*  It  was  followed,  early  in  the  next  year,  by  that  inde- 
scribable enormity,  that  appalling  monument  of  barbarian  cru- 
elty, the  destruction  of  Scio ;  a  scene  I  shall  not  attempt  to  de- 
scribe ;  a  scene  from  which  human  nature  shrinks  shuddering 
away ;  a  scene  having  hardly  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  fallen 
man.  This  scene,  too,  was  quickly  followed  by  the  massacres 
in  Cyprus ;  and  all  these  things  were  perfectly  known  to  the 
Christ/ an  powers  assembled  at  Verona.  Yet  these  powers,  in- 

*  Annual  Register  for  1821,  p.  251. 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  85 

stead  of  acting  upon  the  case  supposed  by  Baron  Strogonoff, 
and  which  one  would  think  had  been  then  fully  made  out,  — 
instead  of  being  moved  by  any  compassion  for  the  sufferings  of 
the  Greeks,  —  these  powers,  these  Christian  powers,  rebuke  their 
gallantry  and  insult  their  sufferings  by  accusing  them  of  "  throw- 
ing a  fireband  into  the  Ottoman  empire."  Such,  Sir,  appear  to 
me  to  be  the  principles  on  which  the  Continental  powers  of  Eu- 
rope have  agreed  hereafter  to  act ;  and  this,  an  eminent  instance 
of  the  application  of  those  principles. 

I  shall  not  detain  the  committee,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  any  at- 
tempt to  recite  the  events  of  the  Greek  struggle  up  to  the  pres- 
ent time.  Its  origin  may  be  found,  doubtless,  in  that  improved 
state  of  knowledge  which,  for  some  years,  has  been  gradually 
taking  place  in  that  country.  The  emancipation  of  the  Greeks 
has  been  a  subject  frequently  discussed  in  modern  times.  They 
themselves  are  represented  as  having  a  vivid  remembrance  of  the 
distinction  of  their  ancestors,  not  unmixed  with  an  indignant 
feeling  that  civilized  and  Christian  Europe  should  not  ere  now 
have  aided  them  in  breaking  their  intolerable  fetters. 

In  1816  a  society  was  founded  in  Vienna  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  Grecian  literature.  It  was  connected  with  a  similar  in- 
stitution at  Athens,  and  another  in  Thessaly,  called  the  "  Gym- 
nasium of  Mount  Pelion."  The  treasury  and  general  office  of 
the  institution  were  established  at  Munich.  No  political  object 
was  avowed  by  these  institutions,  probably  none  contemplated. 
Still,  however,  they  had  their  effect,  no  doubt,  in  hastening 
that  condition  of  things  in  which  the  Greeks  felt  competent  to 
the  establishment  of  their  independence.  Many  young  men 
have  been  for  years  annually  sent  to  the  universities  in  the  west- 
ern states  of  Europe  for  then-  education ;  and,  after  the  general 
pacification  of  Europe,  many  military  men,  discharged  from 
other  employment,  were  ready  to  enter  even  into  so  unpromis- 
ing a  service  as  that  of  the  revolutionary  Greeks. 

In  1820,  war  commenced  between  the  Porte  and  Ali,  the  well- 
known  Pacha  of  Albania.  Differences  existed  also  with  Persia 
and  with  Russia.  In  this  state  of  things,  at  the  beginning  of 
1821,  an  insurrection  broke  out  in  Moldavia,  under  the  direction 
of  Alexander  Ypsilanti,  a  well-educated  soldier,  who  had  been 
major-general  in  the  Russian  service.  From  his  character,  and 
the  number  of  those  who  seemed  inclined  to  join  him,  he  was 

VOL.     III.  8 


86  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

supposed  to  be  countenanced  by  the  court  of  St.  Petersburg. 
Tliis,  h<  wever,  was  a  great  mistake,  which  the  Emperor,  then  at 
Laybach,  took  an  early  opportunity  to  rectify.  The  Turkish 
government  was  alarmed  at  these  occurrences  in  the  northern 
provinces  of  European  Turkey,  and  caused  search  to  be  made 
of  all  vessels  entering  the  Black  Sea,  lest  arms  or  other  military 
means  should  be  sent  in  that  manner  to  the  insurgents.  This 
proved  inconvenient  to  the  commerce  of  Russia,  and  caused 
some  unsatisfactory  correspondence  between  the  two  powers. 
It  may  be  worthy  of  remark,  as  an  exhibition  of  national  char- 
acter, that,  agitated  by  these  appearances  of  intestine  commo- 
tion, the  Sultan  issued  a  proclamation,  calling  on  all  true  Mus- 
sulmans to  renounce  the  pleasures  of  social  life,  to  prepare  arms 
and  horses,  and  to  return  to  the  manner  of  their  ancestors,  the 
life  of  the  plains.  The  Turk  seems  to  have  thought  that  he 
had,  at  last,  caught  something  of  the  dangerous  contagion  of 
European  civilization,  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  reform  his 
habits,  by  recurring  to  the  original  manners  of  military  roving 
barbarians. 

It  was  about  this  time,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  commencement 
of  1821,  that  the  revolution  burst  out  in  various  parts  of  Greece 
and  the  isles.  Circumstances,  certainly,  were  not  unfavorable 
to  the  movement,  as  one  portion  of  the  Turkish  army  was  em- 
ployed in  the  war  against  Ali  Pacha  in  Albania,  and  another 
part  in  the  provinces  north  of  the  Danube.  The  Greeks  soon 
possessed  themselves  of  the  open  country  of  the  Morea,  and 
drove  their  enemy  into  the  fortresses.  Of  these,  that  of  Tripo- 
litza,  with  the  city,  fell  into  their  hands,  in  the  course  of  the 
summer.  Having  after  these  first  movements  obtained  time  to 
breathe,  it  became,  of  course,  an  early  object  to  establish  a  gov- 
ernment. For  this  purpose  delegates  of  the  people  assembled, 
under  that  name  which  describes  the  assembly  in  which  we  our- 
selves sit,  that  name  which  "  freed  the  Atlantic,"  a  Congress.  A 
writer,  who  undertakes  to  render  to  the  civilized  world  that  ser- 
vice which  was  once  performed  by  Edmund  Burke,  I  mean  the 
compiler  of  the  English  Annual  Register,  asks,  by  what  author- 
ity this  assembly  could  call  itself  a  Congress.  Simply,  Sir,  by 
the  same  authority  by  which  the  people  of  the  United  States 
have  given  the  same  name  to  their  own  legislature.  We,  at 
least,  should  be  naturally  inclined  to  think,  not  only  as  far  as 


THE  REVOLUTION   IN   GREECE.  87 

names,  but  things  also,  are  concerned,  that  the  Greeks  could 
hardly  have  begun  their  revolution  under  better  auspices ;  since 
they  have  endeavored  to  render  applicable  to  themselves  the  gen- 
eral principles  of  our  form  of  government,  as  well  as  its  name. 
This  constitution  went  into  operation  at  the  commencement  of 
the  next  year.  In  the  mean  time,  the  war  with  Ali  Pacha  was 
ended,  he  having  surrendered,  and  being  afterwards  assassinated, 
by  an  instance  of  treachery  and  perfidy,  which,  if  it  had  happened 
elsewhere  than  under  the  government  of  the  Turks,  would  have 
deserved  notice.  The  negotiation  with  Russia,  too,  took  a  turn 
unfavorable  to  the  Greeks.  The  great  point  upon  which  Russia 
insisted,  beside  the  abandonment  of  the  measure  of  searching 
vessels  bound  to  the  Black  Sea,  was,  that  the  Porte  should  with- 
draw its  armies  from  the  neighborhood  of  the  Russian  frontiers ; 
and  the  immediate  consequence  of  this,  when  effected,  was  to 
add  so  much  more  to  the  disposable  force  ready  to  be  employed 
against  the  Greeks.  These  events  seemed  to  ha,ve  left  the  whole 
force  of  the  Ottoman  empire,  at  the  commencement  of  1822, 
in  a  condition  to  be  employed  against  the  Greek  rebellion ; 
and,  accordingly,  very  many  anticipated  the  immediate  destruc- 
tion of  the  cause.  The  event,  however,  was  ordered  otherwise. 
Where  the  greatest  effort  was  made,  it  was  met  and  defeated. 
Entering  the  Morea  with  an  army  which  seemed  capable  of  bear- 
ing down  all  resistance,  the  Turks  were  nevertheless  defeated 
and  driven  back,  and  pursued  beyond  the  isthmus,  within  which, 
as  far  as  it  appears,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  they  have  not 
been  able  to  set  their  foot. 

It  was  in  April  of  this  year  that  the  destruction  of  Scio  took 
place.  That  island,  a  sort  of  appanage  of  the  Sultana  mother, 
enjoyed  many  privileges  peculiar  to  itself.  In  a  population  of 
130,000  or  140,000,  it  had  no  more  than  2.000  or  3,000  Turks ; 
indeed,  by  some  accounts,  not  near  as  many.  The  absence  of 
these  ruffian  masters  had  in  some  degree  allowed  opportunity 
for  the  promotion  of  knowledge,  the  accumulation  of  wealth, 
and  the  general  cultivation  of  society.  Here  was  the  teat  of 
modern  Greek  literature;  here  were  libraries,  printing-presses, 
and  other  establishments,  which  indicate  some  advancement  in 
refinement  and  knowledge.  Certain  of  the  inhabitants  of  Sa- 
mos,  it  would  seem,  envious  of  this  comparative  happiness  of 
Scio,  landed  upon  the  island  in  an  irregular  multitude,  for  the 


88  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

purpose  of  compelling  its  inhabitants  to  make  common  cause 
with  their  countrymen  against  their  oppressors.  These,  being 
joined  by  the  peasantry,  marched  to  the  city  and  drove  the 
Turks  into  the  castle.  The  Turkish  fleet,  lately  reinforced  from 
Egypt,  happened  to  be  in  the  neighboring  seas,  and,  learning 
these  events,  landed  a  force  on  the  island  of  fifteen  thousand  men. 
There  was  nothing  to  resist  such  an  army.  These  troops  imme- 
diately entered  the  city  and  began  an  indiscriminate  massacre. 
The  city  was  fired ;  and  in  four  days  the  fire  and  sword  of  the 
Turk  rendered  the  beautiful  Scio  a  clotted  mass  of  blood  and 
ashes.  The  details  are  too  shocking  to  be  recited.  Forty  thou- 
sand women  and  children,  unhappily  saved  from  the  general  des- 
truction, were  afterwards  sold  in  the  market  of  Smyrna,  and  sent 
off  into  distant  and  hopeless  servitude.  Even  on  the  wharves  of 
our  own  cities,  it  has  been  said,  have  been  sold  the  utensils  of 
those  hearths  which  now  exist  no  longer.  Of  the  whole  popu- 
lation which  I  have  mentioned,  not  above  nine  hundred  persons 
were  left  living  upon  the  island.  I  will  only  repeat,  Sir,  that 
these  tragical  scenes  were  as  fully  known  at  the  Congress  of 
Verona,  as  they  are  now  known  to  us ;  and  it  is  not  too  much 
to  call  on  the  powers  that  constituted  that  congress,  in  the  name 
of  conscience  and  in  the  name  of  humanity,  to  tell  us  if  there 
be  nothing  even  in  these  unparalleled  excesses  of  Turkish  bar- 
barity to  excite  a  sentiment  of  compassion ;  nothing  which  they 
regard  as  so  objectionable  as  even  the  very  idea  of  popular  re- 
sistance to  power. 

The  events  of  the  year  which  has  just  passed  by,  as  far  as 
they  have  become  known  to  us,  have  been  even  more  favorable 
to  the  Greeks  than  those  of  the  year  preceding.  I  omit  all  de- 
tails, as  being  as  well  known  to  others  as  to  myself.  Suffice  it 
to  say,  that  with  no  other  enemy  to  contend  with,  and  no  diver- 
sion of  his  force  to  other  objects,  the  Porte  has  not  been  able  to 
carry  the  war  into  the  Morea ;  and  that,  by  the  last  accounts,  its 
armies  were  acting  defensively  in  Thessaly.  I  pass  over,  also, 
the  naval  engagements  of  the  Greeks,  although  that  is  a  mode 
of  warfare  in  which  they  are  calculated  to  excel,  and  in  which 
they  have  already  performed  actions  of  such  distinguished  skill 
and  bravery,  as  would  draw  applause  upon  the  best  mariners  in 
the  world.  The  present  state  of  the  war  would  seem  to  be,  that 
tiie  Greeks  possess  the  whole  of  the  Morea,  with  the  exception 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  89 

of  the  three  fortresses  of  Patras,  Coron,  and  Modon ;  all  Candia, 
but  one  fortress ;  and  most  of  the  other  islands.  They  possess 
the  citadel  of  Athens,  Missolonghi,  and  several  other  places  in 
Livadia.  They  have  been  able  to  act  on  the  offensive,  and  to 
carry  the  war  beyond  the  isthmus.  There  is  no  reason  to  be- 
lieve their  marine  is  weakened ;  more  probably,  it  is  strength- 
ened. But,  what  is  most  important  of  all,  they  have  obtained 
time  and  experience.  They  have  awakened  a  sympathy 
throughout  Europe  and  throughout  America;  and  they  have 
formed  a  government  which  seems  suited  to  the  emergency  of 
their  condition. 

Sir,  they  have  done  much.  It  would  be  great  injustice  to 
compare  their  achievements  with  our  own.  We  began  our 
Revolution,  already  possessed  of  government,  and,  comparative- 
ly, of  civil  liberty.  Our  ancestors  had  from  the  first  been  accus- 
tomed in  a  great  measure  to  govern  themselves.  They  were 
familiar  with  popular  elections  and  legislative  assemblies,  and 
well  acquainted  with  the  general  principles  and  practice  of  free 
governments.  They  had  little  else  to  do  than  to  throw  off  the 
paramount  authority  of  the  parent  state.  Enough  was  still  left, 
both  of  law  and  of  organization,  to  conduct  society  in  its  accus- 
tomed course,  and  to  unite  men  together  for  a  common  object. 
The  Greeks,  of  course,  could  act  with  little  concert  at  the  begin- 
ning ;  they  were  unaccustomed  to  the  exercise  of  power,  without 
experience,  with  limited  knowledge,  without  aid,  and  surround- 
ed by  nations  which,  whatever  claims  the  Greeks  might  seem 
to  have  upon  them,  have  afforded  them  nothing  but  discour- 
agement and  reproach.  They  have  held  out,  however,  for  three 
campaigns;  and  that,  at  least,  is  something.  Constantinople 
and  the  northern  provinces  have  sent  forth  thousands  of  troops ; 
—  they  have  been  defeated.  Tripoli,  and  Algiers,  and  Egypt, 
have  contributed  their  marine  contingents ;  —  they  have  not 
kept  the  ocean.  Hordes  of  Tartars  have  crossed  the  Bospho- 
rus ;  —  they  have  died  where  the  Persians  died.  The  powerful 
monarchies  in  the  neighborhood  have  denounced  their  cause 
and  admonished  them  to  abandon  it  and  submit  to  their  fate. 
They  have  answered  them,  that,  although  two  hundred  thou- 
sand of  their  countrymen  have  offered  up  their  lives,  there  yet 
remain  lives  to  offer;  and  that  it  is  the  determination  of  a//, 
"  yes,  of  ALL,"  to  persevere  until  they  shall  have  established  their 
8* 


90  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

liberty,  or  until  the  power  of  their  oppressors  shall  have  relieved 
them  from  the  burden  of  existence. 

It  may  now  be  asked,  perhaps,  whether  the  expression  of  our 
own  sympathy,  and  that  of  the  country,  may  do  them  good  ?  I 
hope  it  may.  It  may  give  them  courage  and  spirit,  it  may  assure 
them  of  public  regard,  teach  them  that  they  are  not  wholly  for- 
gotten by  the  civilized  world,  and  inspire  them  with  constancy 
in  the  pursuit  of  their  great  end.  At  any  rate,  Sir,  it  appears  to 
me  that  the  measure  which  I  have  proposed  is  due  to  our  own 
character,  and  called  for  by  our  own  duty.  When  we  shall 
have  discharged  that  duty,  we  may  leave  the  rest  to  the  dispo- 
sition of  Providence. 

I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  doubted  that  this  measure  is  en- 
tirely pacific.  I  profess  my  inability  to  perceive  that  it  has  any 
possible  tendency  to  involve  our  neutral  relations.  If  the  reso- 
lution pass,  it  is  not  of  necessity  to  be  immediately  acted  on. 
It  will  not  be  acted  on  at  all,  unless,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Pres- 
ident, a  proper  and  safe  occasion  for  acting  upon  it  shall  arise. 
If  we  adopt  the  resolution  to-day,  our  relations  with  every  for- 
eign state  will  be  to-morrow  precisely  what  they  now  are.  The 
resolution  will  be  sufficient  to  express  our  sentiments  on  the 
subjects  to  which  I  have  adverted.  Useful  for  that  purpose,  it 
can  be  mischievous  for  no  purpose.  If  the  topic  were  properly 
introduced  into  the  message,  it  cannot  be  improperly  introduced 
into  discussion  in  this  House.  If  it  were  proper,  which  no  one 
doubts,  for  the  President  to  express  his  opinions  upon  it,  it  can- 
not, I  think,  be  improper  for  us  to  express  ours.  The  only  cer- 
tain effect  of  this  resolution  is  to  signify,  in  a  form  usual  in 
bodies  constituted  like  this,  our  approbation  of  the  general  sen- 
timent of  the  message.  Do  we  wish  to  withhold  that  approba- 
tion ?  The  resolution  confers  on  the  President  no  new  power, 
nor  does  it  enjoin  on  him  the  exercise  of  any  new  duty;  nor 
does  it  hasten  him  in  the  discharge  of  any  existing  duty. 

I  cannot  imagine  that  this  resolution  can  add  any  thing  to 
those  excitements  which  it  has  been  supposed,  I  think  very 
causelessly,  might  possibly  provoke  the  Turkish  government  to 
acts  of  hostility.  There  is  already  the  message,  expressing  the 
hope  of  success  to  the  Greeks  and  disaster  to  the  Turks,  in  a 
much  stronger  manner  than  is  to  be  implied  from  the  terms  of 
Uiis  resolution.  There  is  the  correspondence  between  the  Sec- 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  91 

retary  of  State  and  the  Greek  Agent  in  London,  already  made 
public,  in  which  similar  wishes  are  expressed,  and  a  continuance 
of  the  correspondence  apparently  invited.  I  might  add  to  this, 
the  unexampled  burst  of  feeling  which  this  cause  has  called 
forth  from  all  claSses  of  society,  and  the  notorious  fact  of  pecu- 
niary contributions  made  throughout  the  country  for  its  aid  and 
advancement.  After  all  this,  whoever  can  see  cause  of  danger 
to  our  pacific  relations  from  the  adoption  of  this  resolution  has 
a  keener  vision  than  I  can  pretend  to.  Sir,  there  is  no  aug- 
mented danger;  there  is  no  danger.  The  question  comes  at 
last  to  this,  whether,  on  a  subject  of  this  sort,  this  House  holds 
an  opinion  which  is  worthy  to  be  expressed. 

Even  suppose,  Sir,  an  agent  or  commissioner  were  to  be  im- 
mediately sent, —  a  measure  which  I  myself  believe  to  be  the 
proper  one,  —  there  is  no  breach  of  neutrality,  nor  any  just  cause 
of  offence.  Such  an  agent,  of  course,  would  not  be  accredited  : 
he  would  not  be  a  public  minister.  The  object  would  be  inqui- 
ry and  information ;  inquiry  which  we  have  a  right  to  make,  in- 
formation which  we  are  interested  to  possess.  If  a  dismember- 
ment of  the  Turkish  empire  be  taking  place,  or  has  already 
taken  place ;  if  a  new  state  be  rising,  or  be  already  risen,  in  the 
Mediterranean,  —  who  can  doubt,  that,  without  any  breach  of 
neutrality,  we  may  inform  ourselves  of  these  events  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  our  own  concerns  ?  The  Greeks  have  declared  the 
Turkish  coasts  in  a  state  of  blockade ;  may  we  not  inform  our- 
selves whether  this  blockade  be  nominal  or  real?  and,  of  course, 
whether  it  shall  be  regarded  or  disregarded  ?  The  greater  our 
trade  may  happen  to  be  with  Smyrna,  a  consideration  which 
seems  to  have  alarmed  some  gentlemen,  the  greater  is  the  rea- 
son, in  my  opinion,  why  we  should  seek  to  be  accurately  in- 
formed of  those  events  which  may  affect  its  safety.  It  seems  to 
me  impossible,  therefore,  for  any  reasonable  man  to  imagine 
that  this  resolution  can  expose  us  to  the  resentment  of  the  Sub- 
lime Porte. 

As  little  reason  is  there  for  fearing  its  consequences  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  Allied  Powers.  They  may,  very  naturally,  dis- 
like our  sentiments  upon  the  subject  of  the  Greek  revolution: 
but  what  those  sentiments  are  they  will  much  more  explicitly 
learn  in  the  President's  message  than  in  this  resolution.  They 
might,  indeed,  prefer  that  we  should  express  no  dissent  from  th*» 


92  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE. 

doctrines  which  they  have  avowed,  and  the  application  which 
they  have  made  of  those  doctrines  to  the  case  of  Greece.  But  I 
trust  we  are  not  disposed  to  leave  them  in  any  doubt  as  to  our 
sentiments  upon  these  important  subjects.  They  have  ex- 
pressed their  opinions,  and  do  not  call  that  expression  of  opinion 
an  interference ;  in  which  respect  they  are  right,  as  the  expres- 
sion of  opinion  in  suclj  cases  is  not  such  an  interference  as 
would  justify  the  Greeks  in  considering  the  powers  at  war  with 
them.  For  the  same  reason,  any  expression  which  we  may 
make  of  different  principles  and  different  sympathies  is  no 
interference.  No  one  would  call  the  President's  message  an 
interference ;  and  yet  it  is  much  stronger  in  that  respect  than 
this  resolution.  If  either  of  them  could  be  construed  to  be  an 
interference,  no  doubt  it  would  be  improper,  at  least  it  would  be 
so  according  to  my  view  of  the  subject ;  for  the  very  thing  which 
I  have  attempted  to  resist  in  the  course  of  these  observations  is 
the  right  of  foreign  interference.  But  neither  the  message  nor 
the  resolution  has  that  character.  There  is  not  a  power  in  Eu- 
rope which  can  suppose,  that,  in  expressing  our  opinions  on  this 
occasion,  we  are  governed  by  any  desire  of  aggrandizing  our- 
selves or  of  injuring  others.  We  do  no  more  than  to  maintain 
those  established  principles  in  which  we  have  an  interest  in 
common  with  other  nations,  and  to  resist  the  introduction  of 
new  principles  and  new  rules,  calculated  to  destroy  the  relative 
independence  of  states,  and  particularly  hostile  to  the  whole 
fabric  of  our  government. 

I  clqse,  then,  Sir,  with  repeating,  that  the  object  of  this  resolu- 
tion is  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  interesting  occasion  of  the 
Greek  revolution  to  make  our  protest  against  the  doctrines  of 
the  Allied  Powers,  both  as  they  are  laid  down  in  principle  and 
as  they  are  applied  in  practice.  I  think  it  right,  too,  Sir,  not  to 
be  unseasonable  in  the  expression  of  our  regard,  and,  as  far  as 
that  goes,  in  a  manifestation  of  our  sympathy  with  a  long  op- 
pressed and  now  struggling  people.  I  am  not  of  those  who 
would,  in  the  hour  of  utmost  peril,  withhold  such  encouragement 
as  might  be  properly  and  lawfully  given,  and,  when  the  crisis 
should  be  past,  overwhelm  the  rescued  sufferer  with  kindness 
and  caresses.  The  Greeks  address  the  civilized  world  with  a 
pathos  not  easy  to  be  resisted.  They  invoke  our  favor  by  more 
moving  considerations  than  can  well  belong  to  the  condition  of 


THL  REVOLUTION  IN  GREECE.  93 

any  other  people.  They  stretch  out  their  arms  to  the  Christian 
communities  of  the  earth,  beseeching  them,  by  a  generous  rec- 
ollection of  their  ancestors,  by  the  consideration  of  their  deso- 
lated and  ruined  cities  and  villages,  by  their  wives  and  children 
sold  into  an  accursed  slavery,  by  their  blood,  which  they  seem 
willing  to  pour  out  like  water,  by  the  common  faith,  and  in  the 
name,  which  unites  all  Christians,  that;  they  would  extend  to 
them  at  least  some  token  of  compassionate  regard. 


THE    TA1UFF.* 


AT  an  early  period  of  the  session  of  Congress  of  1823-24  a  bill 
was  introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives  to  amend  the  sev- 
eral acts  laying  duties  on  imports.  The  object  of  the  bill  was  a 
comprehensive  revision  of  the  existing  laws,  with  a  view  to  the  exten- 
sion of  the  protective  system.  The  bill  became  the  subject  of  a 
protracted  debate,  in  which  much  of  the  talent  of  the  House  on  both 
sides  was  engaged.  Mr.  Webster  took  an  active  part  in  the  discussion, 
and  spoke  upon  many  of  the  details  of  the  bill  while  it  remained  in  the 
committee  of  the  whole  house  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  Several  ob- 
jectionable provisions  were  removed,  and  various  amendments  were  in- 
troduced upon  his  motion ;  and  it  was  a  matter  of  regret  to  him,  as  seen 
in  the  following  speech,  that  the  friends  of  the  bill  were  not  able  or  will- 
ing to  bring  it  into  a  form  in  which,  as  a  whole,  he  could  give  it  his 
support.  On  the  30th  and  31st  of  March,  Mr.  Clay,  Speaker  of  the 
House,  addressed  the  committee  of  the  whole,  at  length  and  with  great 
ability,  on  the  general  principles  of  the  bill ;  and  he  was  succeeded  by 
Mr.  Webster,  on  the  1st  and  2d  of  April,  in  the  following  speech. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN, —  I  will  a^ail  myself  of  the  present  occasion 
to  make  some  remarks  on  certain  principles  and  opinions  which 
have  been  recently  advanced,  and  on  those  considerations  which, 
in  my  judgment,  ought  to  govern  us  in  deciding  upon  the  sev- 
eral and  respective  parts  of  this  very  important  and  complex 
measure.  I  can  truly  say  that  this  is  a  painful  duty.  I  deeply 
regret  the  necessity  which  is  likely  to  be  imposed  upon  me  of 
giving  a  general  affirmative  or  negative  vote  on  the  whole  of 

*  A  Speech  delivered  on  the  1st  and  2d  of  April,  1824,  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, on  the  Bill  for  revising  the  several  Acts  imposing  Duties  on  Certain 
Articles  imported  into  the  United  States. 


THE  TARIFF.  95 

the  bill.  I  cannot  but  think  this  mode  of  proceeding  liable  to 
great  objections.  It  exposes  both  those  who  support  and  those 
who  oppose  the  measure  to  very  unjust  and  injurious  misappre- 
hensions. There  may  be  good  reasons  for  favoring  some  of  the 
provisions  of  the  bill,  and  equally  strong,  reasons  for  opposing 
others ;  and  these  provisions  do  not  stand  to  each  other  in  the 
relation  of  principal  and  incident.  If  that  were  the  case,  those 
who  are  in  favor  of  the  principal  might  forego  their  opinions 
upon  incidental  and  subordinate  provisions.  But  the  bill  pro- 
poses enactments  entirely  distinct  and  different  from  one  an- 
other in  character  and  tendency.  Some  of  its  clauses  are  in- 
tended merely  for  revenue ;  and  of  those  which  regard  the  pro- 
tection of  home  manufactures,  one  part  stands  upon  very  differ- 
ent grounds  from  those  of  other  parts.  So  that  probably  every 
gentleman  who  may  ultimately  support  the  bill  will  vote  for 
much  which  his  judgment  does  not  approve;  and  those  who  op- 
pose it  will  oppose  something  which  they  would  very  gladly 
support. 

Being  intrusted  with  the  interests  of  a  district  highly  commer- 
cial, and  deeply  interested  in  manufactures  also,  I  wish  to  state 
my  opinions  on  the  present  measure,  not  as  on  a  whole,  for  it 
has  no  entire  and  homogeneous  character,  but  as  on  a  collection 
of  different  enactments,  some  of  which  meet  my  approbation 
and  some  of  which  do  not. 

And  allow  me,  Sir,  in  the  first  place,  to  state  my  regret,  if  in- 
deed I  ought  not  to  express  a  warmer  sentiment,  at  the  names 
or  designations  which  Mr.  Speaker*  has  seen  fit  to  adopt  for 
the  purpose  of  describing  the  advocates  and  the  opposers  of  the 
present  bill.  It  is  a  question,  he  says,  between  the  friends  of  an 
"  American  policy"  and  those  of  a  "foreign  policy."  This,  Sir, 
is  an  assumption  which  I  take  the  liberty  most  directly  to  deny. 
Mr.  Speaker  certainly  intended  nothing  invidious  or  derogatory 
to  any  part  of  the  House  by  this  mode  of  denominating  friends 
and  enemies.  But  there  is  power  in  names,  and  this  manner 
of  distinguishing  those  who  favor  and  those  who  oppose  partic- 
ular measures  may  lead  to  inferences  to  which  no  member  of  the 
House  can  submit.  It  may  imply  that  there  is  a  more  exclusive 
and  peculiar  regard  to  American  interests  in  one  class  of  opin- 

•  Mr.  Chr 


96  THE  TARIFF. 

ions  than  in  another.  Such  an  implication  is  to  be  resisted  and 
repelled.  Every  member  has  a  right  to  the  presumption,  that  he 
pursues  what  he  believes  to  be  the  interest  of  his  country  with 
as  sincere  a  zeal  as  any  other  member.  I  claim  this  in  my  own 
case ;  and  while  I  shall  not,  for  any  purpose  of  description  or 
convenient  arrangement,  use  terms  which  may  imply  any  disre- 
spect to  other  men's  opinions,  much  less  any  imputation  upon 
other  men's  motives,  it  is  my  duty  to  take  care  that  the  use  of 
such  terms  by  others  be  not,  against  the  will  of  those  who  adopt 
them,  made  to  produce  a  false  impression. 

Indeed,  Sir,  it  is  a  little  astonishing,  if  it  seemed  convenient 
to  Mr.  Speaker,  for  the  purposes  of  distinction,  to  make  use  of 
the  terms  "  American  policy "  and  "  foreign  policy,"  that  he 
should  not  have  applied  them  in  a  manner  precisely  the  reverse 
of  that  in  which  he  has  in  fact  used  them.  If  names  are 
thought  necessary,  it  would  be  well  enough,  one  would  think, 
that  the  name  should  be  in  some  measure  descriptive  of  the 
thing ;  and  since  Mr.  Speaker  denominates  the  policy  which  he 
recommends  "  a  new  policy  in  this  country " ;  since  he  speaks 
of  the  present  measure  as  a  new  era  in  our  legislation;  since 
he  professes  to  invite  us  to  depart  from  our  accustomed  course, 
to  instruct  ourselves  by  the  wisdom  of  others,  and  to  adopt  the 
policy  of  the  most  distinguished  foreign  states,  —  one  is  a  little 
curious  to  know  with  what  propriety  of  speech  this  imitation  of 
other  nations  is  denominated  an  "  American  policy,"  while,  on 
the  contrary,  a  preference  for  our  own  established  system,  as  it 
now  actually  exists  and  always  has  existed,  is  called  a  "  foreign 
policy."  This  favorite  American  policy  is  what  America  has 
never  tried ;  and  this  odious  foreign  policy  is  what,  as  we  are 
told,  foreign  states  have  never  pursued.  Sir,  that  is  the  truest 
American  policy  which  shall  most  usefully  employ  American 
capital  and  American  labor,  and  best  sustain  the  whole  popula- 
tion. With  me  it  is  a  fundamental  axiom,  it  is  interwoven  with 
ah1  my  opinions,  that  the  great  interests  of  the  country  are  united 
and  inseparable ;  that  agriculture,  commerce,  and  manufactures 
will  prosper  together  or  languish  together ;  arid  that  all  legisla- 
tion is  dangerous  which  proposes  to  benefit  one  of  these  without 
looking  to  consequences  which  may  fall  on  the  others. 

Passing  from  this,  Sir,  I  am  bound  to  say  that  Mr.  Speaker 
began  his  able  and  impressive  speech  at  the  proper  point  of  in- 


THE  TARIFF.  97 

quiry ;  I  mean  the  present  state  and  condition  of  the  country ; 
although  lam  so  unfortunate,  or  rather  although  I  am  so  happy, 
as  to  differ  from  him  very  widely  in  regard  to  that  condition.  I 
dissent  entirely  from  the  justice  of  that  picture  of  distress  which 
he  has  drawn.  I  have  not  seen  the  reality,  and  know  not  where 
it  exists.  Within  my  observation,  there  is  no  cause  for  so 
gloomy  and  terrifying  a  representation.  In  respect  to  the  New 
England  States,  with  the  condition  of  which  I  am  of  course 
best  acquainted,  the  present  appears  to  me  a  period  of  very 
general  prosperity.  Not,  indeed,  a  time  for  sudden  acquisition 
and  great  profits,  not  a  day  of  extraordinary  activity  and  suc- 
cessful speculation.  There  is  no  doubt  a  considerable  depres- 
sion of  prices,  and,  in  some  degree,  a  stagnation  of  business. 
But  the  case  presented  by  Mr.  Speaker  was  not  one  of  depres- 
sion, but  of  distress;  of  universal,  pervading,  intense  distress, 
limited  to  no  class  and  to  no  place.  We  are  represented  as  on 
the  very  verge  and  brink  of  national  ruin.  So  far  from  acquies- 
cing in  these  opinions,  I  believe  there  has  been  no  period  in 
which  the  general  prosperity  was  better  secured,  or  rested  on  a 
more  solid  foundation.  As  applicable  to  the  Eastern  States,  I 
put  this  remark  to  their  representatives,  and  ask  them  if  it  is  not 
true.  When  has  there  been  a  time  in  which  the  means  of  living 
have  been  more  accessible  and  more  abundant  ?  When  has  labor 
been  rewarded,  I  do  not  say  with  a  larger,  but  with  a  more  cer- 
tain success  ?  Profits,  indeed,  are  low ;  in  some  pursuits  of  life, 
which  it  is  not  proposed  to  benefit,  but  to  burden^  by  this  bill, 
very  low.  But  still  I  am  unacquainted  with  any  proofs  of  ex- 
traordinary distress.  What,  indeed,  are  the  general  indications 
of  the  state  of  the  country  ?  There  is  no  famine  nor  pestilence 
in  the  land,  nor  war,  nor  desolation.  There  is  no  writhing  un- 
der the  burden  of  taxation.  The  means  of  subsistence  are 
abundant ;  and  at  the  very  moment  when  the  miserable  condi- 
tion of  the  country  is  asserted,  it  is  admitted  that  the  wages  of 
labor  are  high  in  comparison  with  those  of  any  other  country. 
A  country,  then,  enjoying  a  profound  peace,  perfect  civil  liberty, 
with  the  means  of  subsistence  cheap  and  abundant,  with  the  re- 
ward of  labor  sure,  and  its  wages  higher  than  anywhere  else, 
cannot  be  represented  as  in  gloom,  melancholy,  and  distress,  but 
by  the  effort  of  extraordinary  powers  of  tragedy. 

Even  if,  in  judging  of  this  question,  we  were  to  regard  only 

VOL.    III.  9 


9S  THE  TARIFF. 

those  proofs  to  which  we  have  been  referred,  we  shall  probably 
come  to  a  conclusion  somewhat  different  from  that  which  has 
been  drawn.  Our  exports,  for  example,  although  certainly  less 
than  in  some  years,  were  not,  last  year,  so  much  below  an  av- 
erage formed  upon  the  exports  of  a  series  of  years,  and  putting 
those  exports  at  a  fixed  value,  as  might  be  supposed.  The  value 
of  the  exports  of  agricultural  products,  of  animals,  of  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  forest  and  of  the  sea,  together  with  gunpowder, 
spirits,  and  sundry  unenumerated  articles,  amounted  in  the  sev- 
eral years  to  the  following  sums,  viz. :  — 

In  1790,        .        .        .        .        .        .      $27,716,152 

1804, 33,842,316 

1807, 38,465,854 

Coming  up  now  to  our  own  times,  and  taking  the  exports  of 
the  years  1821,  1822,  and  1823,  of  the  same  articles  and  prod- 
ucts, at  the  same  prices,  they  stand  thus  :  — 

In  1821,        ......     $45,643,175 

1822, 48,782,295 

1823, 55,863,491 

Mr.  Speaker  has  taken  the  very  extraordinary  year  of  1803, 
and,  adding  to  the  exportation  of  that  year  what  he  thinks 
ought  to  have  been  a  just  augmentation,  in  proportion  to  the 
increase  of  our  population,  he  swells  the  result  to  a  magnitude, 
which,  when  compared  with  our  actual  exports,  would  exhibit  a 
great  deficiency.  But  is  there  any  justice  in  this  mode  of  cal- 
culation ?  In  the  first  place,  as  before  observed,  the  year  1803 
was  a  year  of  extraordinary  exportation.  By  reference  to  the 
accounts,  that  of  the  article  of  flour,  for  example,  there  was  an 
export  that  year  of  thirteen  hundred  thousand  barrels ;  but  the 
very  next  year  it  fell  to  eight  hundred  thousand,  and  the  next 
year  to  seven  hundred  thousand.  In  the  next  place,  there  never 
was  any  reason  to  expect  that  the  increase  of  our  exports  of  ag- 
ricultural products  would  keep  pace  with  the  increase  of  our 
population.  That  would  be  against  all  experience.  It  is,  in- 
deed, most  desirable,  that  there  should  be  an  augmented  demand 
for  the  products  of  agriculture;  but,  nevertheless,  the  official 
returns  of  our  exports  do  not  show  that  absolute  want  of  all  for- 
eign market  which  has  been  so  strongly  stated. 

But  there  are  other  means  by  which  to  judge  of  the  general 


THE  TARIFF.  99 

condition  of  the  people.  The  quantity  of  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence consumed,  or,  to  make  use  of  a  phraseology  better  suited 
to  the  condition  of  our  own  people,  the  quantity  of  the  comforts 
of  life  enjoyed,  is  one  of  those  means.  It  so  happens,  indeed, 
that  it  is  not  so  easy  in  this  country  as  elsewhere  to  ascertain 
facts  of  this  sort  with  accuracy.  Where  most  of  the  articles  of 
subsistence  and  most  of  the  comforts  of  life  are  taxed,  there  is, 
of  course,  great  facility  in  ascertaining,  from  official  statements, 
the  amount  of  consumption.  But  in  this  country,  most  fortu- 
nately, the  government  neither  knows,  nor  is  concerned  to  know, 
the  annual  consumption ;  and  estimates  can  only  be  formed  in 
another  mode,  and  in  reference  only  to  a  few  articles.  Of  these 
articles,  tea  is  one.  It  is  not  quite  a  luxury,  and  yet  is  some- 
thing above  the  absolute  necessaries  of  life.  Its  consumption, 
therefore,  will  be  diminished  in  times  of  adversity,  and  aug- 
mented in  times  of  prosperity.  By  deducting  the  annual  ex- 
port from  the  annual  import,  and  taking  a  number  of  years 
together,  we  may  arrive  at  a  probable  estimate  of  consumption. 
The  average  of  eleven  years,  from  1790  to  1800,  inclusive,  will 
be  found  to  be  two  millions  and  a  half  of  pounds.  From  1801 
to  1812,  inclusive,  the  average  was  three  millions  seven  hundred 
thousand ;  and  the  average  of  the  last  three  years,  to  wit,  1821, 
1822,  and  1823,  was  five  millions  and  a  half.  Having  made  a 
just  allowance  for  the  increase  of  our  numbers,  we  shall  still 
find,  I  think,  from  these  statements,  that  there  is  no  distress 
which  has  limited  our  means  of  subsistence  and  enjoyment. 

In  forming  an  opinion  of  the  degree  of  general  prosperity,  we 
may  regard,  likewise,  the  progress  of  internal  improvements,  the 
investment  of  capital  in  roads,  bridges,  and  canals.  Ah"  these 
prove  a  balance  of  income  over  expenditure ;.  they  afford  evi- 
dence that  there  is  a  surplus  of  profits,  which  the  present  gener- 
ation is  usefully  vesting  for  the  benefit  of  the  next.  It  cannot 
be  denied,  that,  in  this  particular,  the  progress  of  the  country  is 
steady  and  rapid. 

Wfe  may  look,  too,  to  the  sums  expended  for  education.  Are 
our  colleges  deserted?  Do  fathers  find  themselves  less  able  than 
usual  to  educate  their  children  ?  It  will  be  found,  I  imagine, 
that  the  amount  paid  for  the  purpose  of  education  is  constantly 
increasing,  and  that  the  schools  and  colleges  were  never  more 
full  than  at  the  present  moment.  I  may  add,  that  the  endow- 


100  THE  TARIFF. 

ment  of  public  charities,  the  contributions  to  objects  of  general 
benevolence,  whether  foreign  or  domestic,  the  munificence  of 
individuals  towards  whatever  promises  to  benefit  the  communi- 
ty, are  all  so  many  proofs  of  national  prosperity.  And,  finally, 
there  is  no  defalcation  of  revenue,  no  pressure  of  taxation. 

The  general  result,  therefore,  of  a  fair  examination  of  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  things,  seems  to  me  to  be,  that  there  is  a  con- 
siderable depression  of  prices,  and  curtailment  of  profit ;  and  in 
some  parts  of  the  country,  it  must  be  admitted,  there  is  a  great 
degree  of  pecuniary  embarrassment,  arising  from  the  difficulty 
of  paying  debts  which  were  contracted  when  prices  were  high. 
With  these  qualifications,  the  general  state  of  the  country  may 
be  said  to  be  prosperous  ;  and  these  are  not  sufficient  to  give  to 
the  whole  face  of  affairs  any  appearance  of  general  distress. 

Supposing  the  evil,  then,  to  be  a  depression  of  prices,  and  a 
partial  pecuniary  pressure,  the  next  inquiry  is  into  the  causes  of 
that  evil ;  and  it  appears  to  me  that  there  are  several ;  and  in 
this  respect,  I  think,  too  much  has  been  imputed  by  Mr.  Speak- 
er to  the  single  cause  of  the  diminution  of  exports.  Connected, 
as  we  are,  with  all  the  commercial  nations  of  the  world,  and 
having  observed  great  changes  to  take  place  elsewhere,  we 
should  consider  whether  the  causes  of  those  changes  have  not 
reached  us,  and  whether  we  are  not  suffering  by  the  operation 
of  them,  in  common  with  others.  Undoubtedly,  there  has  been 
a  great  fall  in  the  price  of  all  commodities  throughout  the  com- 
mercial world,  in  consequence  of  the  restoration  of  a  state  of 
peace.  When  the  Allies  entered  France  in  1814,  prices  rose  as- 
tonishingly fast,  and  very  high.  Colonial  produce,  for  instance, 
in  the  ports  of  this  country,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  sprung  up  sud- 
denly from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  extreme.  A  new  and  vast 
demand  was  created  for  the  commodities  of  trade.  These  were 
the  natural  consequences  of  the  great  political  changes  which 
then  took  place  in  Europe. 

We  are  to  consider,  too,  that  our  own  war  created  new  de- 
mand, and  that  a  government  expenditure  of  twenty-five  or 
thirty  million  dollars  a  year  had  the  usual  effect  of  enhancing 
prices.  We  are  obliged  to  add,  that  the  paper  issues  of  our 
banks  carried  the  same  effect  still  further.  A  depreciated  cur- 
rency existed  in  a  great  part  of  the  country ;  depreciated  to  such 
an  extent,  that,  at  one  time,  exchange  between  the  centre  and  the 


THE  TARIFF.  101 

North  was  as  high  as  twenty  per  cent  The  Bank  of  the  United 
States  was  instituted  to  correct  this  evil ;  but,  for  causes  which 
it  is  not  necessary  now  to  enumerate,  it  did  not  for  some  years 
bring  back  the  currency  of  the  country  to  a  sound  state.  This 
depreciation  of  the  circulating  currency  was  so  much,  of  course, 
added  to  the  nominal  prices  of  commodities,  and  these  prices, 
thus  unnaturally  high,  seemed,  to  those  who  looked  only  at  the 
appearance,  to  indicate  great  prosperity.  But  such  prosperity  is 
more  specious  than  real.  It  would  have  been  better,  probably, 
as  the  shock  would  have  been  less,  if  prices  had  fallen  sooner. 
At  length,  however,  they  fell ;  and  as  there  is  little  doubt  that 
certain  events  in  Europe  had  an  influence  in  determining  the 
time  at  which  this  fall  took  place,  I  will  advert  shortly  to  some 
of  the  principal  of  those  events. 

In  May,  1819,  the  British  House  of  Commons  decided,  by  a 
unanimous  vote,  that  the  resumption  of  cash  payments  by  the 
Bank  of  England  should  not  be  deferred  beyond  the  ensuing 
February.  The  restriction  had  been  continued  from  time  to 
time,  and  from  year  to  year,  Parliament  always  professing  to 
look  to  the  restoration  of  a  specie  currency  whenever  it  should 
be  found  practicable.  Having  been,  in  July,  1818,  continued  to 
July,  1819,  it  was  understood  that,  in  the  interim,  the  important 
question  of  the  time  at  which  cash  payments  should  be  resumed 
should  be  finally  settled.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1818,  the 
circulation  of  the  bank  had  been  greatly  reduced,  and  a  severe 
scarcity  of  money  was  felt  in  the  London  market.  Such  was  the 
state  of  things  in  England.  On  the  Continent,  other  important 
events  took  place.  The  French  Indemnity  Loan  had  been  nego- 
tiated in  the  summer  of  1818,  and  the  proportion  of  it  belonging 
to  Austria,  Russia,  and  Prussia  had  been  sold.  This  created  an 
unusual  demand  for  gold  and  silver  in  those  countries.  It  has 
been  stated,  that  the  amount  of  the  precious  metals  transmitted 
to  Austria  and  Russia  in  that  year  was  at  least  twenty  millions 
sterling.  Other  large  sums  were  sent  to  Prussia  and  to  Denmark. 
The  effect  of  this  sudden  drain  of  specie,  felt  first  at  Paris,  was 
communicated  to  Amsterdam  and  Hamburg,  and  all  other  com- 
mercial places  in  the  North  of  Europe. 

The  paper  system  of  England  had  certainly  communicated  an 
artificial  value  to  property.  It  had  encouraged  speculation,  and 
excited  over-trading.  When  the  shock  therefore  came,  and  this 
9* 


102  THE  TARIFF. 

violent  pressure  for  money  acted  at  the  same  moment  on  the 
Continent  and  in  England,  inflated  and  unnatural  prices  could 
be  kept  up  no  longer.  A  reduction  took  place,  which  has  been 
estimated  to  have  been  at  least  equal  to  a  fall  of  thirty,  if  not 
forty  per  cent.  The  depression  was  universal ;  and  the  change 
was  felt  in  the  United  States  severely,  though  not  equally  so 
in  every  part.  There  are  those,  I  am  aware,  who  maintain 
that  the  events  to  which  I  have  alluded  did  not  cause  the  great 
fall  of  prices,  but  that  that  fall  was  natural  and  inevitable,  from 
the  previously  existing  state  of  things,  the  abundance  of  com- 
modities, and  the  want  of  demand.  But  that  would  only 
prove  that  the  effect  was  produced  in  another  way,  rather  than 
by  another  cause.  If  these  great  and  sudden  calls  for  money 
did  not  reduce  prices,  but  prices  fell,  as  of  themselves,  to  their 
natural  state,  still  the  result  is  the  same ;  for  we  perceive  that, 
after  these  new  calls  for  money,  prices  could  not  be  kept  longer 
at  their  unnatural  height. 

About  the  time  of  these  foreign  events,  our  own  bank  system 
underwent  a  change ;  and  all  these  causes,  in  my  view  of  the 
subject,  concurred  to  produce  the  great  shock  which  took  place 
in  our  commercial  cities,  and  in  many  parts  of  the  country. 
The  year  1819  was  a  year  of  numerous .  failures,  and  very  con- 
siderable distress,  and  would  have  furnished  far  better  grounds 
than  exist  at  present  for  that  gloomy  representation  of  our  con- 
dition which  has  been  presented.  Mr.  Speaker  has  alluded  to 
the  strong  inclination  which  exists,  or  has  existed,  in  various 
parts  of  the  country,  to  issue  paper  money,  as  a  proof  of  great 
existing  difficulties.  I  regard  it  rather  as  a  very  productive  cause 
of  those  difficulties ;  and  the  committee  will  not  fail  to  observe, 
that  there  is,  at  this  moment,  much  the  loudest  complaint  of 
distress  precisely  where  there  has  been  the  greatest  attempt  to 
relieve  it  by  systems  of  paper  credit.  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
content,  prosperity,  and  happiness  are  most  observable  in  those 
parts  of  the  country  where  there  has  been  the  least  endeavor  to 
administer  relief  by  law.  In  truth,  nothing  is  so  baneful,  so 
utterly  ruinous  to  all  true  industry,  as  interfering  with  the  legal 
value  of  money,  or  attempting  to  raise  artificial  standards  to 
supply  its  place.  Such  remedies  suit  well  the  spirit  of  extrava- 
gant speculation,  but  they  sap  the  very  foundation  of  all  honest 
acquisition.  By  weakening  the  security  of  property,  they  take 


THE  TARIFF.  103 

away  all  motive  for  exertion.  Their  effect  is  to  transfer  prop- 
erty. Whenever  a  debt  is  allowed  to  be  paid  by  any  thing  less 
valuable  than  the  legal  currency  in  respect  to  which  it  was  con- 
tracted, the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  paper  given  in 
payment  and  the  legal  currency  is  precisely  so  much  property 
taken  from  one  man  and  given  to  another,  by  legislative  enact- 
ment. 

When  we  talk,  therefore,  of  protecting  industry,  let  us  remem- 
ber that  the  first  measure  for  that  end  is  to  secure  it  in  its  earn- 
ings ;  to  assure  it  that  it  shall  receive  its  own.  Before  we  invent 
new  modes  of  raising  prices,  let  us  take  care  that  existing  prices 
are  not  rendered  wholly  unavailable,  by  making  them  capable 
of  being  paid  in  depreciated  paper.  I  regard,  Sir,  this  issue  of 
irredeemable  paper  as  the  most  prominent  and  deplorable  cause 
of  whatever  pressure  still  exists  in  the  country ;  and,  further,  I 
would  put  the  question  to  the  members  of  this  committee, 
whether  it  is  not  from  that  part  of  the  people  who  have  tried 
this  paper  system,  and  tried  it  to  their  cost,  that  this  bill  receives 
the  most  earnest  support  ?  And  I  cannot  forbear  to  ask,  further, 
whether  this  support  does  not  proceed  rather  from  a  general  feel- 
ing of  uneasiness  under  the  present  condition  of  things,  than 
from  the  clear  perception  of  any  benefit  which  the  measure  itself 
can  confer?  Is  not  ah1  expectation  of  advantage  centred  in  a 
sort,  of  vague  hope,  that  change  may  produce  relief?  Debt  cer- 
tainly presses  hardest  where  prices  have  been  longest  kept  up 
by  artificial  means.  They  find  the  shock  lightest  who  take  it 
soonest ;  and  I  fully  believe  that,  if  those  parts  of  the  country 
which  now  suffer  most,  had  not  augmented  the  force  of  the  blow 
by  deferring  it,  they  would  have  now  been  in  a  much  better  con- 
dition than  they  are.  We  may  assure  ourselves,  once  for  all, 
Sir,  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  payment  of  debts  by 
legislation.  We  may  abolish  debts  indeed;  we  may  transfer 
property  by  visionary  and  violent  laws.  But  we  deceive  both 
ourselves  and  our  constituents,  if  we  flatter  either  ourselves  or 
them  with  the  hope  that  there  is  any  relief  against  whatever 
pressure  exists,  but  in  economy  and  industry.  The  depression 
of  prices  and  the  stagnation  of  business  have  been  in  truth  the 
necessary  result  of  circumstances.  No  government  could  pre- 
vent them,  and  no  government  can  altogether  relieve  the  people 
from  their  effect.  We  have  enjoyed  a  day  of  extraordinary  pros 


104  THE  TARIFF. 

perity ;  we  had  been  neutral  while  the  world  was  at  war  and 
had  found  a  great  demand  for  our  products,  our  navigation,  and 
our  labor.  We  had  no  right  to  expect  that  that  state  of  things 
would  continue  always.  With  the  return  of  peace,  foreign  na- 
tions would  struggle  for  themselves,  and  enter  into  competition 
with  us  in  the  great  objects  of  pursuit. 

Now,  Sir,  what  is  the  remedy  for  existing  evils  ?  What  is  the 
course  of  policy  suited  to  our  actual  condition  ?  Certainly  it  is 
not  our  wisdom  to  adopt  any  system  that  may  be  offered  to  us, 
without  examination,  and  in  the  blind  hope  that  whatever 
changes  our  condition  may  improve  it.  It  is  better  that  we 
should 

"  bear  those  ills  we  have, 
Than  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of." 

We  are  bound  to  see  that  there  is  a  fitness  and  an  aptitude  in 
whatever  measures  may  be  recommended  to  relieve  the  evils 
that  afflict  us ;  and  before  we  adopt  a  system  that  professes  to 
make  great  alterations,  it  is  our  duty  to  look  carefully  to  each 
leading  interest  of  the  community,  and  see  how  it  may  proba- 
bly be  affected  by  our  proposed  legislation. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  what  is  the  condition  of  our  com- 
merce? Here  we  must  clearly  perceive,  that  it  is  not  enjoying 
that  rich  harvest  which  fell  to  its  fortune  during  the  continuance 
of  the  European  wars.  It  has  been  greatly  depressed,  and  lim- 
ited to  small  profits.  Still,  it  is  elastic  and  active,  and  seems 
capable  of  recovering  itself  in  some  measure  from  its  depression. 
The  shipping  interest,  also,  has  suffered  severely,  still  more 
severely,  probably,  than  commerce.  If  any  thing  .should  strike 
ns  with  astonishment,  it  is  that  the  navigation  of  the  United 
States  should  be  able  to  sustain  itself.  Without  any  govern- 
ment protection  whatever,  it  goes  abroad  to  challenge  compe- 
tition with  the  whole  world ;  and,  in  spite  of  all  obstacles,  it  has 
yet  been  able  to  maintain  eight  hundred  thousand  tons  in  the 
employment  of  foreign  trade.  How,  Sir,  do  the  ship-owners 
and  navigators  accomplish  this  ?  How  is  it  that  they  are  able 
to  meet,  and  in  some  measure  overcome,  universal  competition  ? 
It  is  not,  Sir,  by  protection  and  bounties ;  but  by  unwearied  ex- 
ertion, by  extreme  economy,  by  unshaken  perseverance,  by  that 
manly  and  resolute  spirit  which  relies  on  itself  to  protect,  itself. 
These  causes  alone  enable  American  ships  still  to  keep  their 


THE  TARIFF.  105 

element,  and  show  the  flag  of  their  country  in  distant  seas-. 
The  rates  of  insurance  may  teach  us  how  thoroughly  our  ships 
are  built,  and  how  skilfully  and  safely  they  are  navigated.  Risks 
are  taken,  as  I  learn,  from  the  United  States  to  Liverpool,  at 
one  per  cent. ;  and  from  the  United  States  to  Canton  and  back, 
as  low  as  three  per  cent.  But  when  we  look  to  the  low  rate  of 
freight,  and  when  we  consider,  also,  that  the  articles  entering 
into  the  composition  of  a  ship,  with  the  exception  of  wood,  are 
dearer  here  than  in  other  countries,  we  cannot  but  be  utterly 
surprised  that  the  shipping  interest  has  been  able  to  sustain 
itself  at  all.  I  need  not  say  that  the  navigation  of  the  country 
is  essential  to  its  honor  and  its  defence.  Yet,  instead  of  pro- 
posing benefits  for  it  in  this  hour  of  its  depression,  we  threaten 
by  this  measure  to  lay  upon  it  new  and  heavy  burdens.  In  the 
discussion,  the  other  day,  of  that  provision  of  the  bill  which 
proposes  to  tax  tallow  for  the  benefit  of  the  oil-merchants  and 
whalemen,  we  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  eloquent  eulogiums 
upon  that  portion  of  our  shipping  employed  in  the  whale-fishery, 
and  strong  statements  of  its  importance  to  the  public  interest. 
But  the  same  bill  proposes  a  severe  tax  upon  that  interest,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  iron-manufacturer  and  the  hemp-grower.  So 
that  the  tallow-chandlers  and  soapboilers  are  sacrificed  to  the  oil- 
merchants,  in  order  that  these  again  may  contribute  to  the  man- 
ufacturers of  iron  and  the  growers  of  hemp. 

If  such  be  the  state  of  our  commerce  and  navigation,  what  is 
the  condition  of  our  home  manufactures  ?  How  are  they  amidst 
the  general  depression  ?  Do  they  need  further  protection  ?  and 
if  any,  how  much  ?  On  all  these  points,  we  have  had  much 
general  statement,  but  little  precise  information.  In  the  very 
elaborate  speech  of  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  not  supplied  with  satis- 
factory grounds  of  judging  with  respect  to  these  various  partic- 
ulars. Who  can  tell,  from  any  thing  yet  before  the  committee, 
whether  the  proposed  duty  be  too  high  'or  too  low  on  any  one 
article  ?  Gentlemen  tell  us,  that  they  are  in  favor  of  domestic 
industry ;  so  am  I.  They  would  give  it  protection ;  so  would  L 
But  then  all  domestic  industry  is  not  confined  to  manufactures. 
The  employments  of  agriculture,  commerce,  and  navigation  are 
all  branches  of  the  same  domestic  industry;  they  all  furnish 
employment  for  American  capital  and  American  labor.  And 
when  the  question  is,  whether  new  duties  shall  be  laid,  for  the 


THE  TARIFF. 

purpose  of  giving  further  encouragement  to.  particular  maim- 
factures,  every  reasonable  man  must  ask  himself,  both  whether 
the  proposed  new  encouragement  be  necessary,  and  whether  it 
can  be  given  without  injustice  to  other  branches  of  industry. 

It  is  desirable  to  know,  also,  somewhat  more  distinctly,  how 
the  proposed  means  will  produce  the  intended  effect.  One  great 
object  proposed,  for  example,  is  the  increase  of  the  home  market 
for  the  consumption  of  agricultural  products.  This  certainly  is 
much  to  be  desired ;  but  what  provisions  of  the  bill  are  expected 
wholly  or  principally  to  produce  this,  is  not  stated.  I  would 
not  deny  that  some  increase  of  the  home  market  may  follow, 
from  the  adoption  of  this  bill,  but  all  its  provisions  have  not  an 
equal  tendency  to  produce  this  effect.  Those  manufactures 
which  employ  most  labor,  create,  of  course,  most  demand  for 
articles  of  consumption  ;  and  those  create  least  in  the  production 
of  winch  capital  and  skill  enter  as  the  chief  ingredients  of  cost. 
I  cannot,  Sir,  take  this  bill  merely  because  a  committee  has 
recommended  it.  I  cannot  espouse  a  side,  and  fight  under  a 
flag.  I  wholly  repel  the  idea  that  we  must  take  this  law,  or 
pass  no  law  on  the  subject.  What  should  hinder  us  from  exer- 
cising our  own  judgments  upon  these  provisions,  singly  and 
severally  ?  Who  has  the  power  to  place  us,  or  why  should  we 
place  ourselves,  in  a  condition  where  we  cannot  give  to  every 
measure,  that  is  distinct  and  separate  in  itself,  a  separate  and 
distinct  consideration  ?  Sir,  I  presume  no  member  of  the  com- 
mittee will  withhold  his  assent  from  what  he  thinks  right,  until 
others  will  yield  their  assent  to  what  they  think  wrong.  There 
are  many  things  in  this  bill  acceptable,  probably,  to  the  general 
sense  of  the  House.  Why  should  not  these  provisions  be  passed 
into  a  law,  and  others  left  to  be  decided  upon  then1  own  merits, 
as  a  majority  of  the  House  shall  see  fit?  To  some  of  these 
provisions,  I  am  myself  decidedly  favorable;  to  others  I  have 
great  objections ;  and  I  should  have  been  very  glad  of  an  oppor- 
tunity of  giving  my  own  vote  distinctly  on  propositions  which 
are,  in  their  own  nature,  essentially  and  substantially  distinct 
from  one  another. 

But,  Sir,  before  expressing  rny  own  opinion  upon  the  several 
provisions  of  this  bill,  I  will  advert  for  a  moment  to  some  other 
general  topics.  We  have  heard  much  of  the  policy  of  England, 
and  her  example  has  been  repeatedly  urged  upon  us,  as  proving, 


THE  TARIFF.  107 

not  only  the  expediency  of  encouragement  and  protection,  but 
of  exclusion  and  direct  prohibition  also.  I  took  occasion  the 
other  day  to  remark,  that  more  liberal  notions  were  becoming 
prevalent  on  this  subject ;  that  the  policy  of  restraints  and  pro- 
hibitions was  getting  out  of  repute,  as  the  true  nature  of  com- 
merce became  better  understood ;  and  that,  among  public  men, 
those  most  distinguished  were  most  decided  in  their  reprobation 
of  the  broad  principle  of  exclusion  and  prohibition.  Upon  the 
truth  of  this  representation,  as  matter  of  fact,  I  supposed  there 
could  not  be  two  opinions  among  those  who  had  observed  the 
progress  of  political  sentiment  in  other  countries,  and  were  ac- 
quainted with  its  present  state.  In  this  respect,  however,  it 
would  seem  that  I  was  greatly  mistaken.  We  have  heard  it 
again  and  again  declared,  that  the  English  government  still  ad- 
heres, with  immovable  firmness,  to  its  old  doctrines  of  prohibi- 
tion ;  that  although  journalists,  theorists,  and  scientific  writers 
advance  other  doctrines,  yet  the  practical  men,  the  legislators, 
the  government  of  the  country,  are  too  wise  to  follow  them. 
It  has  even  been  most  sagaciously  hinted,  that  the  promulga- 
tion of  liberal  opinions  on  these  subjects  is  intended  only  to  de- 
lude other  governments,  to  cajole  them  into  the  folly  of  liberal 
ideas,  while  England  retains  to  herself  all  the  benefits  of  the  ad- 
mirable old  system  of  prohibition.  We  have  heard  from  Mr. 
Speaker  a  warm  commendation  of  the  complex  mechanism  of 
this  system.  The  British  empire,  it  is  said,  is,  in  the  first  place, 
to  be  protected  against  the  rest  of  the  world ;  then  the  British 
Isles  against  the  colonies ;  next,  the  isles  respectively  against 
each  other,  England  herself,  as  the  heart  of  the  empire,  being 
protected  most  of  ah1,  and  against  ah1. 

Truly,  Sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  Mr.  Speaker's  imagination 
has  seen  system,  and  order,  and  beauty,  in  that  which  is  much 
more  justly  considered  as  the  result  of  ignorance,  partiality,  or 
violence.  This  part  of  English  legislation  has  resulted,  partly 
from  considering  Ireland  as  a  conquered  country,  partly  from 
the  want  of  a  complete  union,  even  with  Scotland,  and  partly 
from  the  narrow  views  of  colonial  regulation,  which  in  early  and 
uninformed  periods  influenced  the  European  states. 

Nothing,  I  imagine,  would  strike  the  public  men  of  England 
more  singularly,  than  to  find  gentlemen  of  real  information  and 
much  weight  in  the  councils  of  this  country  expressing  senti- 


108  THE  TARIFF. 

menis  like  these,  in  regard  to  the  existing  state  of  these  English 
laws.  I  have  never  said,  indeed,  that  prohibitory  laws  do  not 
exist  in  England;  we  all  know  they  do;  but  the  question -is, 
Does  she  owe  her  prosperity  and  greatness  to  these  laws  ? 
I  venture  to  say,  that  such  is  not  the  opinion  of  public  men 
now  in  England,  and  the  continuance  of  the  laws,  even  without 
any  alteration,  would  not  be  evidence  that  their  opinion  i»  dif- 
ferent from  what  I  have  represented  it ;  because  the  laws  hav- 
ing existed  long,  and  great  interests  having  been  built  up  on 
the  faith  of  them,  they  cannot  now  be  repealed  without  great 
and  overwhelming  inconvenience.  Because  a  thing  has  been 
wrongly  done,  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  it  can  now  be 
undone ;  and  this  is  the  reason,  as  I  understand  it,  for  which 
exclusion,  prohibition,  and  monopoly  are  suffered  to  remain  in 
any  degree  in  the  English  system ;  and  for  the  same  reason,  it 
will  be  wise  in  us  to  take  our  measures,  on  all  subjects  of  this 
kind,  with  great  caution.  We  may  not  be  able,  but  at  the  haz- 
ard of  much  injury  to  individuals,  hereafter  to  retrace  our  steps. 
And  yet,  whatever  is  extravagant  or  unreasonable  is  not  likely 
to  endure.  There  may  come  a  moment  of  strong  reaction ;  and 
if  no  moderation  be  shown  in  laying  on  duties,  there  may  be 
as  little  scruple  in  taking  them  off. 

It  may  be  here  observed,  that  there  is  a  broad  and  marked 
distinction  between  entire  prohibition  and  reasonable  encour- 
agement. It  is  one  thing,  by  duties  or  taxes  on  foreign  articles, 
to  awaken  a  home  competition  in  the  production  of  the  same  ar- 
ticles ;  it  is  another  thing  to  remove  all  competition  by  a  total 
exclusion  of  the  foreign  article;  and  it  is  quite  another  thing 
still,  by  total  prohibition,  to  raise  up  at  home  manufactures  not 
suited  to  the  climate,  the  nature  of  the  country,  or  the  state  of 
the  population.  These  are  substantial  distinctions,  and  although 
it  may  not  be  easy  in  every  case  to  determine  which  of  them 
applies  to  a  given  article,  yet  the  distinctions  themselves  exist, 
and  in  most  cases  will  be  sufficiently  clear  to  indicate  the  true 
course  of  policy ;  and,  unless  I  have  greatly  mistaken  the  pre- 
vailing sentiment  in  the  councils  of  England,  it  grows  every  day 
more  and  more  favorable  to  the  diminution  of  restrictions,  and 
to  the  wisdom  of  leaving  much  (I  do  not  say  every  thing,  for 
that  would  not  be  true)  to  the  enterprise  and  the  discretion  of 
individuals.  I  should  certainly  not  have  taken  up  the  time  of 


THE  TARIFF.  109 

the  committee  to  state  at  any  length  the  opinions  of  other  gov- 
ernments, or  of  the  public  men  of  other  countries,  upon  a  sub- 
ject like  this ;  but  an  occasional  remark  made  by  me  the  other 
day,  having  been  so  directly  controverted,  especially  by  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  his  observations  yesterday,  I  must  take  occasion  to 
refer  to  some  proofs  of  what  I  have  stated. 

What,  then,  is  the  state  of  English  opinion  ?  Every  body 
knows  that,  after  the  termination  of  the  late  European  war, 
there  came  a  time  of  great  pressure  in  England.  Since  her  ex- 
ample has  been  quoted,  let  it  be  asked  in  what  mode  her  gov- 
ernment sought  relief.  Did  it  aim  to  maintain  artificial  and 
unnatural  prices  ?  Did  it  maintain  a  swollen  and  extravagant 
paper  circulation  ?  Did  it  carry  further  the  laws  of  prohibition 
and  exclusion  ?  Did  it  draw  closer  the  cords  of  colonial  re- 
straint ?  No,  Sir,  but  precisely  the  reverse.  Instead  of  relying 
on  legislative  contrivances  and  artificial  devices,  it  trusted  to  the 
enterprise  and  industry  of  the  people,  which  it  sedulously  sought 
to  excite,  not  by  imposing  restraint,  but  by  removing  it,  wher- 
ever its  removal  was  practicable.  In  May,  1820,  the  attention  of 
the  government  having  been  much  turned  to  the  state  of  foreign 
trade,  a  distinguished  member*  of  the  House  of  Peers  brought 
forward  a  Parliamentary  motion  upon  that  subject,  followed 
by  an  ample  discussion  and  a  full  statement  of  his  own  opin- 
ions. In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  observed,  "that  there 
ought  to  be  no  prohibitory  duties,  as  such ;  for  that  it  was  evi 
dent,  that,  where  a  manufacture  could  not  be  carried  on,  01  a 
production  raised,  but  under  the  protection  of  a  prohibitory  duty, 
that  manufacture,  or  that  produce,  could  not  be  brought  to  mar- 
ket but  at  a  loss.  In  his  opinion,  the  name  of  strict  prohibition 
might,  therefore,  in  commerce,  be  got  rid  of  altogether;  but  he 
did  not  see  the  same  objection  to  protecting  duties,  which,  while 
they  admitted  of  the  introduction  of  commodities  from  abroad 
similar  to  those  which  we  ourselves  manufactured,  placed  them 
so  much  on  a  level  as  to  allow  a  competition  between  them." 
"  No  axiom,"  he  added,  "  was  more  true  than  this  :  that  it  was 
by  growing  what  the  territory  of  a  country  could  grow  most 
cheaply,  and  by  receiving  from  other  countries  what  it  could  not 
produce  except  at  too  great  an  expense,  that  the  greatest  degree 

•  Lord  Lansduwne. 
\OL.    III.  10 


110  THE  TARIFF. 

of  happiness  was  to  be  communicated  to  the  greatest  extent  of 
population." 

In  assenting  to  the  motion,  the  first  minister  *  of  the  crown 
expressed  his  own  opinion  of  the  great  advantage  resulting  from 
unrestricted  freedom  of  trade.  "  Of  the  soundness  of  that  gen- 
eral principle,"  he  observed,  "  I  can  entertain  no  doubt.  I  can 
entertain  no  doubt  of  what  would  have  been  the  great  advan- 
tages to  the  civilized  world,  if  the  system  of  unrestricted  trade 
had  been  acted  upon  by  every  nation  from  the  earliest  period  of 
its  commercial  intercourse  with  its  neighbors.  If  to  those  ad- 
vantages there  could  have  been  any  exceptions,  I  am  persuaded 
that  they  would  have  been  but  few ;  and  I  am  also  persuaded 
that  the  cases  to  which  they  would  have  referred  would  not 
have  been,  in  themselves,  connected  with  the  trade  and  com- 
merce of  England.  But  we  are  now  in  a  situation  in  which,  I 
will  not  say  that  a  reference  to  the  principle  of  unrestricted 
trade  can  be  of  no  use,  because  such  a  reference  may  correct 
erroneous  reasoning,  but  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  us,  or  for 
any  country  in  the  world  but  the  United  States  of  America,  to 
act  unreservedly  on  that  principle.  The  commercial  regulations 
of  the  European  world  have  been  long  established,  and  cannot 
suddenly  be  departed  from."  Having  supposed  a  proposition  to 
be  made  to  England  by  a  foreign  state  for  free  commerce  and 
intercourse,  and  an  unrestricted  exchange  of  agricultural  products 
and  of  manufactures,  he  proceeds  to  observe :  "  It  would  be  im- 
possible to  accede  to  such  a  proposition.  We  have  risen  to  our 
present  greatness  under  a  different  system.  Some  suppose  thai 
we  have  risen  in  consequence  of  that  system  ;  others,  of  whom  1 
am  one,  believe  that  we  have  risen  in  spite  of  that  system.  But, 
whichever  of  these  hypotheses  be  true,  certain  it  is  that  we  have 
risen  under  a  very  different  system  than  that  of  free  and  unre- 
stricted trade.  It  is  utterly  impossible,  with  our  debt  and  taxa- 
tion, even  if  they  were  but  half  their  existing  amount,  that  we 
can  suddenly  adopt  the  system  of  free  trade." 

Lord  Ellenborough,  in  the  same  debate,  said,  "  that  he  attrib- 
uted the  general  distress  then  existing  in  Europe  to  the  regula- 
tions that  had  taken  place  since  the  destruction  of  the  French 
power.  Most  of  the  states  on  the  Continent  had  surrounded 

*   Lord  Liv-rpooJ 


THE  TARIFF.  Ill 

themselves  as  with  walls  of  brass,  to  inhibit  intercourse  with 
other  states.  Intercourse  was  prohibited,  even  in  districts  of  the 
same  state,  as  was  the  case  in  Austria  and  Sardinia.  Thus, 
though  the  taxes  on  the  people  had  been  lightened,  the  severity 
of  their  condition  had  been  increased.  He  believed  that  the 
discontent  which  pervaded  most  parts  of  Europe,  and  especially 
Germany,  was  more  owing  to  commercial  restrictions  than  to 
any  theoretical  doctrines  on  government ;  and  that  a  free  com- 
munication among  them  would  do  more  to  restore  tranquillity, 
than  any  other  step  that  could  be  adopted.  He  objected  to  all 
attempts  to  frustrate  the  benevolent  intentions  of  Providence, 
which  had  given  to  various  countries  various  wants,  in  order 
to  bring  them  together.  He  objected  to  it  as  anti-social ;  he 
objected  to  it,  as  making  commerce  the  means  of  barbariz- 
ing, instead  of  enlightening,  nations.  The  state  of  the  trade 
with  France  was  most  disgraceful  to  both  countries ;  the  two 
greatest  civilized  nations  of  the  world,  placed  at  a  distance  of 
scarcely  twenty  miles  from  each  other,  had  contrived,  by  their 
artificial  regulations,  to  reduce  their  commerce  with  each  other 
to  a  mere  nullity."  Every  member  speaking  on  this  occasion 
agreed  in  the  general  sentiments  favorable  to  unrestricted  inter- 
course, which  had  thus  been  advanced  ;  one  of  them  remarking, 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  debate,  that  "the  principles  of  free 
trade,  which  he  was  happy  to  see  so  fully  recognized,  were  of 
the  utmost  consequence;  for,  though,  in  the  present  circum- 
stances of  the  country,  a  free  trade  was  unattainable,  yet  their 
task  hereafter  was  to  approximate  to  it.  Considering  the  preju- 
dices and  interests  which  were  opposed  to  the  recognition  of 
that  principle,  it  was  no  small  indication  of  the  firmness  and 
liberality  of  government  to  have  so  fully  conceded  it." 

Sir,  we  have  seen,  in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  that  several 
gentlemen  have  expressed  their  high  admiration  of  the  silk  man- 
ufacture of  England.  Its  commendation  was  begun,  I  think, 
by  the  honorable  member  from  Vermont,  who  sits  near  me,  who 
thinks  that  that  alone  gives  conclusive  evidence  of  the  benefits 
produced  by  attention  to  manufactures,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  great 
source  of  wealth  to  the  nation,  and  has  amply  repaid  all  the 
cost  of  its  protection.  Mr.  Speaker's  approbation  of  this  part  of 
the  English  example  was  still  warmer.  Now,  Sir,  it  does  so 
happen,  that  both  these  gentlemen  differ  very  widely  on  this 


112  THE  TARIFF. 

point  from  the  opinions  entertained  in  England,  by  persons  of 
the  first  rank,  both  as  to  knowledge  and  power.  In  the  debate 
to  which  I  have  already  referred,  the  proposer  of  the  motion 
urged  the  expediency  of  providing  for  the  admission  of  the  silks 
of  France  into  England.  "  He  was  aware,"  he  said,  "that  there 
was  a  poor  and  industrious  body  of  manufacturers,  whose  inter- 
ests must  suffer  by  such  an  arrangement;  and  therefore  he  felt 
that  it  would  be  the  duty  of  Parliament  to  provide  for  the  pres- 
ent generation  by  a  large  Parliamentary  grant.  It  was  con- 
formable to  every  principle  of  sound  justice  to  do  so,  when  the 
interests  of  a  particular  class  were  sacrificed  to  the  good  of  the 
wholt\"  In  answer  to  these  observations,  Lord  Liverpool  said 
that,  with  reference  to  several  branches  of  manufactures,  time, 
and  the  change  of  circumstances,  had  rendered  the  system  of 
protecting  duties  merely  nominal ;  and  that,  in  his  opinion,  if 
all  the  protecting  laws  which  regarded  both  the  woollen  and 
cotton  manufactures  were  to  be  repealed,  no  injurious  effects 
would  thereby  be  occasioned.  "But,"  he  observe0.,  "with  re- 
Bppc  t  to  silk,  that  manufacture  in  this  kingdom  is  so  completely 
artificial,  that  any  attempt  to  introduce  the  principles  of  free 
i.'-*de  with  reference  to  it  might  put  an  end  to  it  altogether.  I 
allow  that  the  silk  manufacture  is  not  natural  to  this  country. 
/  wish  we  had  never  had  a  silk  manufactory.  I  allow  that  it  is 
natural  to  France ;  I  allow  that  it  might  have  been  better,  had 
each  country  adhered  exclusively  to  that  manufacture  in  which 
earh  is  superior;  and  had  the  silks  of  France  been  exchanged 
•tor  British  cottons.  But  I  must  look  at  things  as  they  are; 
and  when  I  consider  the  extent  of  capital,  and  the  immense  pop- 
ulation, consisting,  I  believe,  of  about  fifty  thousand  persons,  en- 
gaged in  our  silk  manufacture,  I  can  only  say,  that  one  of  the 
few  points  in  which  I  totally  disagree  with  the  proposer  of  the 
motion  is  the  expediency,  under  existing  circumstances,  of  hold- 
ing out  any  idea,  that  it  would  be  possible  to  relinquish  the  silk 
manufacture,  and  to  provide  for  those  who  live  by  it,  by  Parlia- 
mentary enactment.  Whatever  objections  there  may  be  to  the 
continuance  of  the  protecting  system,  I  repeat,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible altogether  to  relinquish  it.  I  may  regret  that  the  system 
was  ever  commenced ;  but  as  I  cannot  recall  that  act,  I  must 
submit  to  the  inconvenience  by  which  it  is  attended,  rather  than 
expose  the  country  to  evils  of  greater  magnitude."  Let  it  be  re- 


THE  TARIFF.  113 

membercd,  Sir,  that  these  are  not  the  sentiments  of  a  theorist, 
nor  the  fancies  of  speculation ;  but  the  operative  opinions  of  the 
first  minister  of  England,  acknowledged  to  be  one  of  the  ablest 
and  most  practical  statesmen  of  his  country. 

Gentlemen  could  have  hardly  been  more  unfortunate  than  in 
the  selection  of  the  silk  manufacture  in  England  as  an  example 
of  the  beneficial  effects  of  that  system  which  they  would  recom- 
mend. It  is,  in  the  language  which  I  have  quoted,  completely 
artificial.  It  has  been  sustained  by  I  know  not  how  many  laws, 
breaking  in  upon  the  plainest  principles  of  general  expediency. 
At  the  last  session  of  Parliament,  the  manufacturers  petitioned 
for  the  repeal  of  three  or  four  of  these  statutes,  complaining  of 
the  vexatious  restrictions  which  they  impose  on  the  wages  of 
labor;  setting  forth,  that  a  great  variety  of  orders  has  from  time 
to  time  been  issued  by  magistrates  under  the  authority  of  these 
laws,  interfering  in  an  oppressive  manner  with  the  minutest  de- 
tails of  the  manufacture :  such  as  limiting  the  number  of  threads 
to  an  inch,  restricting  the  widths  of  many  sorts  of  work,  and 
determining  the  quantity  of  labor  not  to  be  exceeded  without 
extra  wages ;  that  by  the  operation  of  these  laws,  the  rate  of 
wages,  instead  of  being  left  to  the  recognized  principles  of  regu- 
lation, has  been  arbitrarily  fixed  by  persons  whose  ignorance 
renders  them  incompetent  to  a  just  decision ;  that  masters  are 
compelled  by  law  to  pay  an  equal  price  for  all  work,  whether 
well  or  ill  performed ;  and  that  they  are  wholly  prevented  from 
using  improved  machinery,  it  being  ordered,  that  work,  in  the 
weaving  of  which  machinery  is  employed,  shall  be  paid  precisely 
at  the  same  rate  as  if  done  by  hand;  that  these  acts  have 
frequently  given  rise  to  the  most  vexatious  regulations,  the  un- 
intentional breach  of  which  has  subjected  manufacturers  to  ruin- 
ous penalties ;  and  that  the  introduction  of  all  machinery  being 
prevented,  by  which  labor  might  be  cheapened,  and  the  manu- 
facturers being  compelled  to  pay  at  a  fixed  price,  under  all 
circumstances,  they  are  unable  to  afford  employment  to  their 
workmen,  in  times  of  stagnation  of  trade,  and  are  compelled 
to  stop  their  looms.  And  finally,  they  complain,  that,  notwith- 
standing these  grievances  under  which  they  labor,  while  carrying 
on  their  manufacture  in  London,  the  law  still  prohibits  them, 
while  they  continue  to  reside  there,  from  employing  any  portion 
of  their  capital  in  the  same  business  in  any  ether  part  of  the 
10* 


1L4  THE  TARIFF. 

kingdom,  where  it  might  be  more  beneficially  conducted.  Now, 
Sir,  absurd  as  these  laws  must  appear  to  be  to  every  man,  the 
attempt  to  repeal  them  did  not,  as  far  as  I  recollect,  altogether 
succeed.  The  weavers  were  too  numerous,  their  interests  too 
great,  or  their  prejudices  too  strong;  and  this  notable  instance 
of  protection  and  monopoly  still  exists,  to  be  lamented  in  Eng- 
land with  as  much  sincerity  as  it  seems  to  be  admired  here. 

In  order  further  to  show  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the  Eng- 
lish government,  I  would  refer  to  a  report  of  a  select  committee 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  at  the  head  of  which  was  the  Vice- 
President  of  the  Board  of  Trade  (Mr.  Wallace),  in  July,  1820. 
•'  The  time,"  say  that  committee,  "  when  monopolies  could  be 
successfully  supported,  or  would,  be  patiently  endured,  either  in 
respect  to  subjects  against  subjects,  or  particular  countries 
against  the  rest  of  the  world,  seems  to  have  passed  away.  Com- 
merce, to  continue  undisturbed  and  secure,  must  be,  as  it  was 
intended  to  be,  a  source  of  reciprocal  amity  between  nations, 
and  an  interchange  of  productions  to  promote  the  industry,  the 
wealth,  and  the  happiness  of  mankind."  In  moving  for  the  re- 
appointment  of  the  committee  in  February,  1823,  the  same 
gentleman  said :  "  We  must  also  get  rid  of  that  feeling  of  ap- 
propriation which  exhibited  itself  in  a  disposition  to  produce 
every  thing  necessary  for  our  own  consumption,  and  to  render 
ourselves  independent  of  the  world.  No  notion  could  be  more 
absurd  or  mischievous ;  it  led,  even  in  peace,  to  an  animosity  and 
rancor  greater  than  existed  in  time  of  war.  Undoubtedly  there 
would  be  great  prejudices  to  combat,  both  in  this  country  and 
elsewhere,  in  the  attempt  to  remove  the  difficulties  which  are 
most  obnoxious.  It  would  be  impossible  to  forget  the  attention 
which  was  in  some  respects  due  to  the  present  system  of  protec- 
tions, although  that  attention  ought  certainly  not  to  be  carried 
beyond  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  case."  And  in  a  second 
report  of  the  committee,  drawn  by  the  same  gentleman,  in  that 
part  of  it  which  proposes  a  diminution  of  duties  on  timber  from 
the  North  of  Europe,  and  the  policy  of  giving  a  legislative  pref- 
erence to  the  importation  of  such  timber  in  the  log,  and  a  dis- 
couragement of  the  importation  of  deals,  it  is  stated  that  the 
committee  reject  this  policy,  because,  among  other  reasons,  "  it 
is  founded  on  a  principle  of  exclusion,  which  they  are  most 
avers0  to  see  brought  into  operation,  in  any  new  instance,  with- 


THE  TARIFF.  115 

out  the  warrant  of  some  evident  and  great  political  expediency." 
And  on  many  subsequent  occasions  the  same  gentleman  has 
taken  occasion  to  observe,  that  he  differed  from  those  who 
thought  that  manufactures  could  not  flourish  without  restrictions 
on  trade  ;  that  old  prejudices  of  that  sort  were  dying  away,  and 
that  more  liberal  and  just  sentiments  were  taking  their  place. 

These  sentiments  appear  to  have  been  followed  by  important 
legal  provisions,  calculated  to  remove  restrictions  and  prohibi- 
tions where  they  were  most  severely  felt ;  that  is  to  say,  in  sev- 
eral branches  of  navigation  and  trade.  They  have  relaxed  their 
colonial  system,  they  have  opened  the  ports  of  their  islands,  and 
have  done  away  the  restriction  which  limited  the  trade  of  the 
colony  to  the  mother  country.  Colonial  products  can  now  be 
carried  directly  from  the  islands  to  any  part  of  Europe ;  and  it 
may  not  be  improbable,  considering  our  own  high  duties  on 
spirits,  that  that  article  may  be  exchanged  hereafter  by  the  Eng- 
lish "West  India  colonies  directly  for  the  timber  and  deals  of  the 
Baltic.  It  may  be  added  that  Mr.  Lowe,  whom  the  gentleman 
has  cited,  says,  that  nobody  supposes  that  the  three  great  staples 
of  English  manufactures,  cotton,  woollen,  and  hardware,  are 
benefited  by  any  existing  protecting  duties ;  and  that  one  object 
of  all  these  protecting  laws  is  usually  overlooked,  and  that  is, 
that  they  have  been  intended  to  reconcile  the  various  interests  to 
taxation ;  the  corn  law,  for  example,  being  designed  as  some 
equivalent  to  the  agricultural  interest  for  the  burden  of  tithes 
and  of  poor-rates. 

In  fine,  Sir,  I  think  it  is  clear,  that,  if  we  now  embrace  the 
system  of  prohibitions  and  restrictions,  we  shah1  show  an  affec- 
tion for  what  others  have  discarded,  and  be  attempting  to  orna- 
ment ourselves  with  cast-off  apparel. 

Sir,  I  should  not  have  gone  into  this  prolix  detail  of  opinions 
from  any  consideration  of  their  special  importance  on  the  pres- 
ent occasion;  but  having  happened  to  state  that  such  was  the 
actual  opinion  of  the  government  of  England  at  the  present 
time,  and  the  accuracy  of  this  representation  having  been  so 
confidently  denied,  I  have  chosen  to  put  the  matter  beyond 
doubt  or  cavil,  although  at  the  expense  of  these  tedious  cita- 
tions I  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  refer  more  particu- 
larly to  sundry  recent  British  enactments,  by  way  of  showing 
the  diligence  and  spirit  with  which  that  government  strives  to 


116  THE  TARIFF. 

sustain  its  navigating  interest,  by  opening  the  widest  possible 
range  to  the  enterprise  of  individual  adventurers.  I  repeat,  that 
I  have  not  alluded  to  these  examples  of  a  foreign  state  as  being 
fit  to  control  our  own  policy.  In  the  general  principle,  I  acqui- 
esce. Protection,  when  carried  to  the  point  which  is  now  rec- 
ommended, that  is,  to  entire  prohibition,  seems  to  me  destruc- 
tive of  all  commercial  intercourse  between  nations.  We  are 
urged  to  adopt  the  system  upon  general  principles ;  and  what 
would  be  the  consequence  of  the  universal  application  of  such 
a  general  principle,  but  that  nations  would  abstain  entirely  from 
all  intercourse  with  one  another  ?  I  do  not  admit  the  general 
principle ;  on  the  contrary,  I  think  freedom  of  trade  to  be  the 
general  principle,  and  restriction  the  exception.  And  it  is  for 
every  state,  taking  into  view  its  own  condition,  to  judge  of  the 
propriety,  in  any  case,  of  making  an  exception,  constantly  pre- 
ferring, as  I  think  all  wise  governments  will,  not  to  depart  with- 
out urgent  reason  from  the  general  rule. 

There  is  another  point  in  the  existing  policy  of  England  to 
which  I  would  most  earnestly  invite  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee ;  I  mean  the  warehouse  system,  or  what  we  usually  call 
the  system  of  drawback.  Very  great  prejudices  appear  to  me 
to  exist  with  us  on  that  subject.  We  seem  averse  to  the  exten- 
sion of  the  principle.  The  English  government,  on  the  con- 
trary, appear  to  have  carried  it  to  the  extreme  of  liberality. 
They  have  arrived,  however,  at  their  present  opinions  and  pres- 
ent practice  by  slow  degrees.  The  transit  system  was  com- 
menced about  the  year  1803,  but  the  first  law  was  partial  and 
limited.  It  admitted  the  importation  of  raw  materials  for  ex- 
portation, but  it  excluded  almost  every  sort  of  manufactured 
goods.  This  was  done  for  the  same  reason  that  we  propose  to 
prevent  the  transit  of  Canadian  wheat  through  the  United 
States,  the  fear  of  aiding  the  competition  of  the  foreign  article 
with  our  own  in  foreign  markets.  Better  reflection  or  more  ex- 
perience has  induced  them  to  abandon  that  mode  of  reasoning, 
and  to  consider  all  such  means  of  influencing  foreign  markets  as 
nugatory ;  since,  in  the  present  active  and  enlightened  state  of 
the  world,  nations  will  supply  themselves  from  the  best  sources, 
and  the  true  policy  of  all  producers,  whether  of  raw  materials  or 
of  manufactured  articles,  is,  not  vainly  to  endeavor  to  keep 
other  ve  idors  out  of  the  market,  but  to  conquer  them  in  it  by 


THE  TARIFF.  117 

the  quality  and  the  cheapness  of  their  articles.  The  present 
policy  of  England,  therefore,  is  to  allure  the  importation  of  com- 
modities into  England,  there  to  be  deposited  in  English  ware- 
houses, thence  to  be  exported  in  assorted  cargoes,  and  thus  en- 
abling her  to  carry  on  a  general  export  trade  to  all  quarters  of 
the  globe.  Articles  of  all  kinds,  with  the  single  exception  of 
tea,  may  be  brought  into  England,  from  any  part  of  the  world, 
in  foreign  as  well  as  British  ships,  there  warehoused,  and  again 
exported,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  owner,  without  the  payment  of 
any  duty  or  government  charge  whatever. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  would  take  notice  also  of  the 
recent  proposition  in  the  English  Parliament  to  abolish  the  tax 
on  imported  wool ;  and  it  is  observable  that  those  who  support 
this  proposition  give  the  same  reasons  that  have  been  offered  here, 
within  the  last  week,  against  the  duty  which  we  propose  on  the 
same  article.  They  say  that  their  manufacturers  require  a  cheap 
and  coarse  wool,  for  the  supply  of  the  Mediterranean  and  Levant 
trade,  and  that,  without  a  more  free  admission  of  the  wool  of  the 
Continent,  that  trade  will  all  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Germans 
and  Italians,  who  will  carry  it  on  through  Leghorn  and  Trieste. 
While  there  is  this  duty  on  foreign  wool  to  protect  the  wool- 
growers  of  England,  there  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  prohibition 
on  the  exportation  of  the  native  article  in  aid  of  the  manufactur- 
ers. The  opinion  seems  to  be  gaining  strength,  that  the  true 
policy  is  to  abolish  both. 

Laws  have  long  existed  in  England  preventing  the  emigra- 
tion of  artisans  and  the  exportation  of  machinery ;  but  the  policy 
of  these,  also,  has  become  doubted,  and  an  inquiry  has  been  in- 
stituted in  Parliament  into  the  expediency  of  repealing  them. 
As  to  the  emigration  of  artisans,  say  those  who  disapprove  the 
laws,  if  that  were  desirable,  no  law  could  effect  it;  and  as  to  the 
exportation  of  machinery,  let  us  make  it  and  export  it  as  we 
would  any  other  commodity.  If  France  is  determined  to  spin 
and  weave  her  own  cotton,  let  us,  if  we  may,  still  have  the  ben- 
efit of  furnishing  the  machinery. 

I  have  stated  these  things,  Sir,  to  show  what  seems  to  be  the 
general  tone  of  thinking  and  reasoning  on  these  subjects  in  that 
country,  the  example  of  which  has  been  so  much  pressed  upon 
us.  Whether  the  present  policy  of  England  be  right  or  wrong, 
vr  ise  or  unwise,  it  cannot,  as  it  seems  clearly  to  me,  be  quoted 


118  THE  TARIFF. 

as  an  authority  for  carrying  further  the  restrictive  and  exclusive 
system,  either  in  regard  to  manufactures  or  trade.  To  reestab- 
lish a  sound  currency,  to  meet  at  once  the  shock,  tremendous  as 
it  was,  of  the  fall  of  prices,  to  enlarge  her  capacity  for  foreign 
trade,  to  open  wide  the  field  of  individual  enterprise  and  compe- 
tition, and  to  say  plainly  and  distinctly  that  the  country  must 
relieve  itself  from  the  embarrassments  which  it  felt,  by  economy, 
frugality,  and  renewed  efforts  of  enterprise,  —  these  appear  to  be 
the  general  outline  of  the  policy  which  England  has  pursued. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  proceed  to  say  a  few  words  upon  a 
topic,  but  for  the  introduction  of  which  into  this  debate  I  should 
not  have  given  the  committee  on  this  occasion  the  trouble  of 
hearing  me.  Some  days  ago,  I  believe  it  was  when  we  were  set- 
tling the  controversy  between  the  oil-merchants  and  the  tallow- 
chandlers,  the  balance  of  trade  made  its  appearance  in  debate,  and 
I  must  confess,  Sir,  that  I  spoke  of  it,  or  rather  spoke  to  it,  some- 
what freely  and  irreverently.  I  believe  I  used  the  hard  names 
which  have  been  imputed  to  me,  and  I  did  it  simply  for  the  pur- 
pose of  laying  the  spectre,  and  driving  it  back  to  its  tomb.  Cer- 
tainly, Sir,  when  I  called  the  old  notion  on  this  subject  non 
sense,  I  did  not  suppose  that  I  should  offend  any  one,  unless  the 
dead  should  happen  to  hear  me.  All  the  living  generation,  I 
took  it  for  granted,  would  think  the  term  very  properly  applied. 
In  this,  however,  I  was  mistaken.  The  dead  and  the  living  rise 
up  together  to  call  me  to  account,  and  I  must  defend  myself  as 
well  as  I  am  able. 

Let  us  inquire,  then,  Sir,  what  is  meant  by  an  unfavorable 
balance  of  trade,  and  what  the  argument  is,  drawn  from  that 
source..  By  an  unfavorable  balance  of  trade,  I  understand,  is 
meant  that  state  of  things  in  which  importation  exceeds  expor- 
tation. To  apply  it  to  our  own  case,  if  the  value  of  goods  im- 
ported exceed  the  value  of  those  exported,  then  the  balance  of 
trade  is  said  to  be  against  UP,  inasmuch  as  we  have  run  in  debt 
to  the  amount  of  this  difference.  Therefore  it  is  said,  that,  if  a 
nation  continue  long  in  a  commerce  like  this,  it  must  be  ren- 
dered absolutely  bankrupt.  It  is  in  the  condition  of  a  man  that 
buys  more  than  he  sells ;  and  how  can  such  a  traffic  be  main- 
tained without  ruin  ?  Now.  Sir,  the  whole  fallacy  of  this  argu- 
ment consists  in  supposing,  that,  whenever  the  value  of  imports 


THE  TARIFF.  119 

exceeds  that  of  exports,  a  debt  is  necessarily  created  to  the  ex-  *• 
tent  of  the  difference,  whereas,  ordinarily,  the  import  is  no  more 
than  the  result  of  the  export,  augmented  in  value  by  the  labor 
of  transportation.  The  excess  of  imports  over  exports,  in  t/uth, 
usually  shows  the  gains,  not  the  losses,  of  trade  ;  or,  in  a  coun- 
try that  not  only  buys  and  sells  goods,  but  employs  ships  in  car- 
rying goods  also,  it  shows  the  profits  of  commerce,  and  the  earn- 
ings of  navigation.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that,  in  the 
usual  course  of  things,  and  taking  a  series  of  years  together,  the 
value  of  our  imports  is  the  aggregate  of  our  exports  and  our 
freights.  If  the  value  of  commodities  imported  in  a  given  in- 
stance did  not  exceed  the  value  of  the  outward  cargo,  with  which 
they  were  purchased,  then  it  would  be  clear  to  every  man's  com- 
mon sense,  that  the  voyage  had  not  been  profitable.  If  such  com- 
modities fell  far  short  in  value  of  the  cost  of  the  outward  cargo, 
then  the  voyage  would  be  a  very  losing  one ;  and  yet  it  would 
present  exactly  that  state  of  things,  which,  according  to  the  no- 
tion of  a  balance  of  trade,  can  alone  indicate  a  prosperous  com- 
merce. On  the  other  hand,  if  the  return  cargo  were  found  to  be 
worth  much  more  than  the  outward  cargo,  while  the  merchant, 
having  paid  for  the  goods  exported,  and  all  the  expenses  of  the 
voyage,  finds  a  handsome  sum  yet  in  his  hands,  which  he  calls 
profits,  the  balance  of  trade  is  still  against  him,  and,  whatever  he 
may  think  of  it,  he  is  in  a  very  bad  way.  Although  one  indi- 
vidual or  all  individuals  gain,  the  nation  loses;  while  all  its  cit- 
izens grow  rich,  the  country  grows  poor.  This  is  the  doctrine- 
of  the  balance  of  trade. 

Allow  me,  Sir,  to  give  an  instance  tending  to  show  how  un- 
accountably individuals  deceive  themselves,  and  imagine  them- 
selves to  be  somewhat  rapidly  mending  their  condition,  while 
they  ought  to  be  persuaded  that,  by  that  infallible  standard,  the 
balance  of  trade,  they  are  on  the  high  road  to  ruin.  Some  years 
ago,  in  better  times  than  the  present,  a  ship  left  one  of  the  towns 
of  New  England  with  70,000  specie  dollars.  She  proceeded  to 
Mocha,  on  the  Red  Sea,  and  there  laid  out  these  dollars  in  cof- 
fee, drugs,  spices,  and  other  articles  procured  in  that  market. 
With  this  new  cargo  she  proceeded  to  Europe ;  two  thirds  of 
it  were  sold  in  Holland  for  $  130,000,  which  the  ship  brought 
back,  and  placed  in  the  same  bank  from  the  vaults  of  which  she 
had  taken  her  original  outfit.  The  other  third  was  sent  to  the 


120  THE  TARIFF. 

*  ports  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  produced  a  return  of  $  25,000 
in  specie,  and  $  15,000  in  Italian  merchandise.  These  sums 
together  make  $  170,000  imported,  which  is  $  100,000  more 
than  was  exported,  and  is  therefore  proof  of  an  unfavorable  bal- 
ance of  trade,  to  that  amount,  in  this  adventure.  We  should 
find  no  great  difficulty,  Sir,  in  paying  off  our  balances,  if  this 
were  the  nature  of  them  all. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  all  these  obsolete  and  exploded 
notions  had  their  origin  in  very  mistaken  ideas  of  the  true  nature 
of  commerce.  Commerce  is  not  a  gambling  among  nations  for  a 
stake,  to  be  won  by  some  and  lost  by  others.  Tt  has  not  the  ten- 
dency necessarily  to  impoverish  one  of  the  parties  to  it,  while  it 
enriches  the  other ;  all  parties  gain,  all  parties  make  profits,  all 
parties  grow  rich,  by  the  operations  of  just  and  liberal  commerce. 
If  the  world  had  but  one  clime  and  but  one  soil ;  if  all  men  had 
the  same  wants  and  the  same  means,  on  the  spot  of  their  exist- 
ence, to  gratify  those  wants,  —  then,  indeed,  what  one  obtained 
from  the  other  by  exchange  would  injure  one  party  in  the  same 
degree  that  it  benefited  the  other;  then,  indeed,  there  would  be 
some  foundation  for  the  balance  of  trade.  But  Providence  has 
disposed  our  lot  much  more  kindly.  We  inhabit  a  various  earth. 
We  have  reciprocal  wants,  and  reciprocal  means  for  gratifying 
one  another's  wants.  This  is  the  true  origin  of  commerce,  which 
is  nothing  more  than  an  exchange  of  equivalents,  and,  from  the 
rude  barter  of  its  primitive  state,  to  the  refined  and  complex 
condition  in  which  we  see  it,  its  principle  is  uniformly  the  same; 
its  only  object  being,  in  every  stage,  to  produce  that  exchange  of 
commodities  between  individuals  and  between  nations  which 
shall  conduce  to  the  advantage  and  to  the  happiness  of  both. 
Commerce  between  nations  has  the  same  essential  character 
as  commerce  between  individuals,  or  between  parts  of  the  same 
nation.  Cannot  two  individuals  make  an  interchange  of  com- 
modities which  shall  prove  beneficial  to  both,  or  in  which  the 
balance  of  trade  shall  be  in  favor  of  both  ?  If  not,  the  tailor  anJ 
the  shoemaker,  the  farmer  and  the  smith,  have  hitherto  very 
much  misunderstood  their  own  interests.  And  with  regard  in 
the  internal  trade  of  a  country,  in  which  the  same  rule  would 
apply  as  between  nations,  do  we  ever  speak  of  such  an  inter- 
course as  prejudicial  to  one  side  because  it  is  useful  to  the  oth- 
er? Do  we  ever  hear  that,  because  the  intercourse  between 


THE  TARIFF.  121 

New  Vork  and  Albany  is  advantageous  to  one  of  those  places, 
it  must  therefore  be  ruinous  to  the  other  ? 

May  I  be  allowed,  Sir,  to  read  a  passage  on  this  subject  from 
the  observations  of  a  gentleman,  in  my  opinion  one  of  the  most 
clear  and  sensible  writers  and  speakers  of  the  age  upon  subjects 
of  this  sort  ?  *  "  There  is  no  political  question  on  which  the 
prevalence  of  false  principles  is  so  general,  as  in  what  relates  to 
the  nature  of  commerce  and  to  the  pretended  balance  of  trade; 
and  there  are  few  which  have  led  to  a  greater  number  of  prac- 
tical mistakes,  attended  with  consequences  extensively  prejudi- 
cial to  the  happiness  of  mankind.  In  this  country,  our  Parlia- 
mentary proceedings,  our  public  documents,  and  the  works  of 
several  able  and  popular  writers,  have  combined  to  propagate 
the  impression,  that  we  are  indebted  for  much  of  our  riches  to 
what  is  called  the  balance  of  trade."  "  Our  true  policy  would 
surely  be  to  profess,  as  the  object  and  guide  of  our  commercial 
system,  that  which  every  man  who  has  studied  the  subject  must 
know  to  be  the  true  principle  of  commerce,  the  interchange  of 
reciprocal  and  equivalent  benefit.  We  may  rest  assured  that  it 
is  not  in  the  nature  of  commerce  to  enrich  one  party  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  other.  This  is  a  purpose  at  which,  if  it  were  prac- 
ticable, we  ought  not  to  aim ;  and  which,  if  we  aimed  at,  we 
could  not  accomplish."  These  remarks,  I  believe,  Sir,  were  writ- 
ten some  ten  or  twelve  years  ago.  They  are  in  perfect  accord- 
ance with  the  opinions  advanced  in  more  elaborate  treatises, 
and  now  that  the  world  has  returned  to  a  state  of  peace,  and 
commerce  has  resumed  its  natural  channels,  and  different  na- 
tions are  enjoying,  or  seeking  to  enjoy,  their  respective  portions 
of  it,  all  see  the  justness  of  these  ideas ;  all  see,  that,  in  this  day 
of  knowledge  and  of  peace,  there  can  be  no  commerce  between 
nations  but  that  which  shall  benefit  all  who  are  parties  to  it. 

If  it  were  necessary,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  might  ask  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  refer  to  a  document  before  us,  on  this  subject  of 
the  balance  of  trade.  It  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  accounts, 
that,  in  the  course  of  the  last  year,  our  total  export  to  Holland 
exceeded  two  millions  and  a  half;  our  total  import  from  the  same 
country  was  but  seven  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Now,  can  any 
man  be  wild  enough  to  make  any  inference  from  this  as  to  the 

*  Mr.  Huskisson,  President  of  the  English  Board  of  Trade. 
VOL.   ill.  11 


122  THE  TARIFF. 

gain  or  loss  of  our  trade  with  Holland  for  that  year?  Our  trade 
with  Russia  for  the  same  year  produced  a  balance  the  other  way  ; 
our  import  being  two  millions,  and  our  export  but  half  a  million. 
But  this  has  no  more  tendency  to  show  the  Russian  trade  a  los- 
ing trade,  than  the  other  statement  has  to  show  that  the  Dutch 
trade  has  been  a  gainful  one.  Neither  of  them,  by  itself,  proves 
any  thing. 

Springing  out  of  this  notion  of  a  balance  of  trade,  there 
is  another  idea,  which  has  been  much  dwelt  upon  in  the 
course  of  this  debate ;  that  is,  that  we  ought  not  to  buy  of  na- 
tions who  do  not  buy  of  us ;  for  example,  that  the  Russian  trade 
is  a  trade  disadvantageous  to  the  country,  and  ought  to  be  dis- 
couraged, because,  in  the  ports  of  Russia,  we  buy  more  than  we 
sell.  Now  allow  me  to  observe,  in  the  first  place,  Sir,  that  we 
have  no  account  showing  how  much  we  do  sell  in  the  ports  of 
Russia.  Our  official  returns  show  us  only  what  is  the  amount 
of  our  direct  trade  with  her  ports.  But  then  we  all  know  that 
the  proceeds  of  another  portion  of  our  exports  go  to  the  same 
market,  though  indirectly.  We  send  our  own  products,  for  ex- 
ample, to  Cuba,  or  to  Brazil ;  we  there  exchange  them  for  the 
sugar  and  the  coffee  of  those  countries,  and  these  articles  we 
carry  to  St.  Petersburg,  and  there  sell  them.  Again ;  our  ex- 
ports to  Holland  and  Hamburg  are  connected  directly  or  indi- 
rectly with  our  imports  from  Russia.  What  difference  does  it 
make,  in  sense  or  reason,  whether  a  cargo  of  iron  be  bought  at 
St.  Petersburg,  by  the  exchange  of  a  cargo  of  tobacco.,  or  wheth- 
er the  tobacco  has  been  sold  on  the  way,  in  a  better  market,  in 
a  port  of  Holland,  the  money  remitted  to  England,  and  the  iron 
paid  for  by  a  bill  on  London  ?  There  might  indeed  have  been 
an  augmented  freight,  there  might  have  been  some  saving  of 
commissions,  if  tobacco  had  been  in  brisk  demand  in  the  Rus- 
sian market.  But  still  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  whole 
voyage  may  not  have  been  highly  profitable.  That  depends 
upon  the  original  cost  of  the  article  here,  the  amount  of  freight 
and  insurance  to  Holland,  the  price  obtained  there,  the  rate  of 
exchange  between  Holland  and  England,  the  expense,  then,  of 
proceeding  to  St.  Petersburg,  the  price  of  l^uii  there,  the  rate  of 
exchange  between  that  place  and  England,  the  amount  of  freight 
and  insurance  at  home,  and,  finally,  the  value  of  the  iron  when 
brought  to  our  own  market.  These  are  the  calculations  which 


THE  TARIFF.  123 

determine  the  fortune  of  the  adventure ;  and  nothing  can  be 
judged  of  it,  one  way  or  the  other,  by  the  relative  state  of  our 
imports  or  exports  with  Holland,  England,  or  Russia. 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  deny,  that  it  may  often  be  OUT 
interest  to  cultivate  a  trade  with  countries  that  require  most  of 
such  commodities  as  we  can  furnish,  an^l  which  are  capable 
also  of  directly  supplying  our  own  wants.  This  is  the  original 
and  the  simplest  form  of  all  commerce,  and  is  no  doubt  highly 
beneficial.  Some  countries  are  so  situated,  that  commerce,  in 
this  original  form,  or  something  near  it,  may  be  all  that  they 
can,  without  considerable  inconvenience,  carry  on.  Our  trade, 
for  example,  with  Madeira  and  the  Western  Islands  has  been 
useful  to  the  country,  as  furnishing  a  demand  for  some  portion 
of  our  agricultural  products,  which  probably  could  not  have 
been  bought  had  we  not  received  their  products  in  return. 
Countries  situated  still  farther  from  the  great  marts  and  high- 
ways of  the  commercial  world  may  afford  still  stronger  instan- 
ces of  the  necessity  and  utility  of  conducting  commerce  on  the 
original  principle  of  barter,  without  much  assistance  from  the 
operations  of  credit  and  exchange.  All  I  would  be  understood 
to  say  is,  that  it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  can  carry  on  noth- 
ing but  a  losing  trade  with  a  country  from  which  we  receive 
more  of  her  products  than  she  receives  of  ours.  Since  I  was 
supposed,  the  other  day,  in  speaking  upon  this  subject,  to  ad- 
vance opinions  which  not  only  this  country  ought  to  reject, 
but  which  also  other  countries,  and  those  the  most  distinguished 
for  skill  and  success  in  commercial  intercourse,  do  reject,  I  will 
ask  leave  to  refer  again  to  the  discussion  which  I  first  men- 
tioned in  the  English  Parliament,  relative  to  the  foreign  trade 
of  that,  country.  "  With  regard,"  says  the  mover  *  of  the  propo- 
sition, "to  the  argument  employed  against  renewing  our  inter- 
course with  the  North  of  Europe,  namely,  that  those  who  sup- 
plied us  with  timber  from  that  quarter  would  not  receive  British 
manufactures  in  return,  it  appeared  to  him  futile  and  unground- 
ed. If  they  did  not  send  direct  for  our  manufactures  at  home, 
they  would  send  for  them  to  Leipsic  and  other  fairs  of  Germa- 
ny. Were  not  the  Russian  and  Polish  merchants  purchasers 
there  to  a  great  amount  ?  But  he  would  never  admit  the  prin- 

*  The  Marquess  of  Lansdowne. 


124  THE  TARIFF. 

ciple,  that  a  trade  was  not  profitable  because  we  were  obliged 
to  carry  it  on  with  the  precious  metals,  or  that  we  ought  to  re- 
nounce it,  because  our  manufactures  were  not  received  by  the 
foreign  nation  in  return  for  its  produce.  Whatever  we  received 
must  be  paid  for  in  the  produce  of  our  land  and  labor,  directly 
or  circuitously,  and  Jae  was  glad  to  have  the  noble  Earl's  * 
marked  concurrence  in  this  principle." 

Referring  ourselves  again,  Sir,  to  the  analogies  of  common 
life,  no  one  would  say  that  a  farmer  or  a  mechanic  should  buy 
only  where  he  can  do  so  by  the  exchange  of  his  own  produce,  or 
of  his  own  manufacture.  Such  exchange  may  be  often  conven- 
ient ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  cash  purchase  may  be  often 
more  convenient.  It  is  the  same  in  the  intercourse  of  nations. 
Indeed,  Mr.  Speaker  has  placed  this  argument  on  very  clear 
grounds.  It  was  said,  in  the  early  part  of  the  debate,  that,  if  we 
cease  to  import  English  cotton  fabrics,  England  will  no  long- 
er continue  to  purchase  our  cotton.  To  this  Mr.  Speaker  re- 
plied, with  great  force  and  justice,  that,  as  she  must  have  cotton 
in  large  quantities,  she  will  buy  the  article  where  she  can  find  it 
best  and  cheapest  ;•  and  that  it  would  be  quite  ridiculous  in  her, 
manufacturing  as  she  still  would  be,  for  her  own  vast  consump- 
tion and  the  consumption  of  millions  in  other  countries,  to  reject 
our  uplands  because  we  had  learned  to  manufacture  a  part  of 
them  for  ourselves.  Would  it  not  be  equally  ridiculous  in  us,  if 
the  commodities  of  Russia  were  both  cheaper  and  better  suited 
to  our  wants  than  could  be  found  elsewhere,  to  abstain  from 
commerce  with  her,  because  she  will  not  receive  in  return  other 
commodities  which  we  have  to  sell,  but  which  she  has  no  occa- 
sion to  buy  ? 

Intimately  connected,  Sir,  with  this  topic,  is  another  which 
has  been  brought  into  the  debate ;  I  mean  the  evil  so  much  com- 
plained of,  the  exportation  of  specie.  We  hear  gentlemen  im- 
puting the  loss  of  market  at  home  to  a  want  of  money,  and  this 
want  of  money  to  the  exportation  of  the  precious  metals.  We 
near  the  India  and  China  trade  denounced,  as  a  commerce  con- 
ducted on  our  side,  in  a  great  measure,  with  gold  and  silver. 
These  opinions,  Sir,  are  clearly  void  of  all  just  foundation,  and 

*  Lord  Liverpool. 


THE  TARIFF.  125 

we  cannot  too  soon  get  rid  of  them.  There  are  no  shallower 
reasoners  than  those  political  and  commercial  writers  who  would 
represent  it  to  be  the  only  true  and  gainful  end  of  commerce,  to 
accumulate  the  precious  metals.  These  are  articles  of  use,  and 
articles  of  merchandise,  with  this  additional  circumstance  be- 
longing to  them,  that  they  are  made,  by  the  general  consent 
of  nations,  the  standard  by  which  the  value  of  all  other  mer- 
chandise is  to  be  estimated.  In  regard  to  weights  and  meas- 
ures, something  drawn  from  external  nature  is  made  a  com- 
mon standard,  for  the  purposes  of  general  convenience;  and 
this  is  precisely  the  office  performed  by  the  precious  metals, 
in  addition  to  those  uses  to  which,  as  metals,  they  are  capa- 
ble of  being  applied.  There  may  be  of  these  too  much  or 
too  little  in  a  country  at  a  particular  time,  as  there  may  be 
of  any  other  articles.  When  the  market  is  overstocked  with 
them,  as  it  often  is,  their  exportation  becomes  as  proper  and  as 
useful  as  that  of  other  commodities,  under  similar  circumstan- 
ces. We  need  no  more  repine,  when  the  dollars  which  have- 
been  brought  here  from  South  America  are  despatched  to  other 
countries,  than  when  coffee  and  sugar  take  the  same  direc- 
tion. We  often  deceive  ourselves,  by  attributing  to  a  scar- 
city of  money  that  which  is  the  result  of  other  causes.  In  the 
course  of  this  debate,  the  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania* 
has  represented  the  country  as  full  of  every  thing  but  money. 
But  this  I  take  to  be  a  mistake.  The  agricultural  products,  so 
abundant  in  Pennsylvania,  will  not,  he  says,  sell  for  money ;  but 
they  will  sell  for  money  as  quick  as  for  any  other  article  which 
happens  to  be  in  demand.  They  will  seU  for  money,  for  exam- 
ple, as  easily  as  for  coffee  or  for  tea,  at  the  prices  which  properly 
belong  to  those  articles.  The  mistake  lies  in  imputing  that  to 
want  of  money  which  arises  from  want  of  demand.  Men  do 
not  buy  wheat  because  they  have  money,  but  because  they 
want  wheat.  To  decide  whether  money  be  plenty  or  not,  that 
is,  whether  there  be  a  large  portion  of  capital  unemployed  or 
not,  when  the  currency  of  a  country  is  metallic,  we  must  look, 
not  only  to  the  prices  of  commodities,  but  also  to  the  rate  of 
interest.  A  low  rate  of  interest,  a  facility  of  obtaining  money 
on  loans,  a  disposition  to  invest  in  permanent  stocks,  all  of 

*  Mr.  Tod 
11* 


126  THE  TARIFF. 

which  are  proofs  that  money  is  plenty,  may  nevertheless  often 
denote  a  state  not  of  the  highest  prosperity.  They  may,  and 
often  do,  show  a  want  of  employment  for  capital ;  and  the  ac- 
cumulation of  specie  shows  the  same  thing.  We  have  no  occa- 
sion for  the  precious  metals  as  money,  except  for  the  purposes 
of  circulation,  or  rather  of  sustaining  a  safe  paper  circulation. 
And  whenever  there  is  a  prospect  of  a  profitable  investment 
abroad,  all  the  gold  and  silver,  except  what  these  purposes  re- 
quire, will  be  exported.  For  the  same  reason,  if  a  demand  exist 
abroad  for  sugar  and  coffee,  whatever  amount  of  those  articles 
might  exist  in  the  country,  beyond  the  wants  of  its  own  con- 
sumption, would  be  sent  abroad  to  meet  that  demand. 

Besides,  Sir,  how  should  it  ever  occur  to  any  body,  that  we 
should  continue  to  export  gold  and  silver,  if  we  did  not  continue 
to  import  them  also  ?  If  a  vessel  take  our  own  products  to  the 
Havana,  or  elsewhere,  exchange  them  for  dollars,  proceed  to  Chi- 
na, exchange  them  for  silks  and  teas,  bring  these  last  to  the  ports 
of  the  Mediterranean,  sell  them  there  for  dollars,  and  return  to  the 
United  States ;  this  would  be  a  voyage  resulting  in  the  importa- 
tion of  the  precious  metals.  But  if  she  had  returned  from  Cuba, 
and  the  dollars  obtained  there  had  been  shipped  direct  from  the 
United  States  to  China,  the  China  goods  sold  in  Holland,  and 
the  proceeds  brought  home  in  the  hemp  and  iron  of  Russia,  this 
would  be  a  voyage  in  which  they  were  exported.  Yet  every 
body  sees  that  both  might  be  equally  beneficial  to  the  individ- 
ual and  to  the  public.  I  believe,  Sir,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  we 
have  enjoyed  great  benefit  in  our  trade  with  India  and  China, 
from  the  liberty  of  going  from  place  to  place  all  over  the  world, 
without  being  obliged  in  the  mean  time  to  return  home,  a  liberty 
not  heretofore  enjoyed  by  the  private  traders  of  England,  in 
regard  to  India  and  China.  Suppose  the  American  ship  to  be 
at  Brazil,  for  example ;  she  could  proceed  with  her  dollars  direct 
to  India,  and,  in  return,  could  distribute  her  cargo  in  all  the 
various  ports  of  Europe  or  America ;  while  an  English  ship,  if 
a  private  trader,  being  at  Brazil,  must  first  return  to  England, 
and  then  could  only  proceed  in  the  direct  line  from  England  to 
India.  This  advantage  our  countrymen  have  not  been  back- 
ward to  improve ;  and  in  the  debate  to  which  I  have  already  so 
often  referred,  it  was  stated,  not  without  some  complaint  of  the 
inconvenience  of  exclusion,  and  the  natural  sluggishness  of  mo- 


THE  TARIFF.  127 

nopoly,  that  American  ships  were  at  that  moment  fitting  out  in 
the  Thames,  to  supply  France,  Holland,  and  other  countries  on 
the  Continent,  with  tea ;  while  the  East  India  Company  would 
not  do  this  of  themselves,  nor  allow  any  of  their  fellow-country 
men  to  do  it  for  them. 

There  is  yet  another  subject,  Mr.  Chairman,  upon  which  I 
would  wish  to  say  something,  if  I  might  presume  upon  the  con- 
tinued patience  of  the  committee.  We  hear  sometimes  in  the 
House,  and  continually  out  of  it,  of  the  rate  of  exchange,  as 
being  one  proof  that  we  are  on  the  downward  road  to  ruin. 
Mr.  Speaker  himself  has  adverted  to  that  topic,  and  I  am  afraid 
that  his  authority  may  give  credit  to  opinions  clearly  unfounded, 
and  which  lead  to  very  false  and  erroneous  conclusions.  Sir, 
let  us  see  what  the  facts  are.  Exchange  on  England  has  re- 
cently risen  one  or  one  and  a  half  per  cent.,  partly  owing,  per- 
haps, to  the  introduction  of  this  bill  into  Congress.  Before  this 
recent  rise,  and  for  the  last  six  months,  I  understand  its  average 
may  have  been  about  seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  advance.  Now, 
supposing  this  to  be  the  real,  and  not  merely,  as  it  is,  the  nomi- 
nal, par  of  exchange  between  us  and  England,  what  would  it 
prove  ?  Nothing,  except  that  funds  were  wanted  by  American 
citizens  in  England  for  commercial  operations,  to  be  carried  on 
either  in  England  or  elsewhere.  It  would  not  necessarily  show 
that  we  were  indebted  to  England ;  for,  if  we  had  occasion  to 
pay  debts  in  Russia  or  Holland,  funds  in  England  would  natu- 
rally enough  be  required  for  such  a  purpose.  Even  if  it  did 
prove  that  a  balance  was  due  England  at  the  moment,  it  would 
have  no  tendency  to  explain  to  us  whether  our  commerce  with 
England  had  been  profitable  or  unprofitable. 

But  it  is  not  true,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  real  price  of  ex- 
change is  seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  advance,  nor,  indeed,  that 
there  is  at  the  present  moment  any  advance  at  all.  That  is  to 
say,  it  is  not  true  that  merchants  will  give  such  an  advance,  or 
any  advance,  for  money  in  England,  beyond  what  they  would  give 
for  the  same  amount,  in  the  same  currency,  here.  It  will  strike 
every  one  who  reflects  upon  it,  that,  if  there  were  a  real  differ- 
ence of  seven  and  a  half  per  cent.,  money  would  be  immediately 
shipped  to  England ;  because  the  expense  of  transportation 
vrould  be  far  less  than  that  difference.  Or  commodities  of  trade 


128  THE  TARIFF. 

would  be  shipped  to  Europe,  and  the  proceeds  remitted  to  Eng- 
land. If  it  could  so  happen,  that  American  merchants  should 
be  willing  to  pay  ten  per  cent,  premium  for  money  in  England, 
or,  in  other  words,  that  a  real  difference  to  that  amount  in  the 
exchange  should  exist,  its  effects  would  be  immediately  seen  in 
new  shipments  of  our  own  commodities  to  Europe,  because  this 
state  of  things  would  create  new  motives.  A  cargo  of  tobacco, 
for  example,  might  sell  at  Amsterdam  for  the  same  price  as  be- 
fore; but  if  its  proceeds,  when  remitted  to  London,  were  ad- 
vanced, as  they  would  be  in  such  case,  ten  per  cent,  by  the  state 
of  exchange,  this  would  be  so  much  added  to  the  price,  and 
would  operate  therefore  as  a  motive  for  the  exportation;  and  in 
this  way  national  balances  are,  and  always  will  be,  adjusted. 

To  form  any  accurate  idea  of  the  true  state  of  exchange  be- 
tween two  countries,  we  must  look  at  their  currencies,  and 
compare  the  quantities  of  gold  and  silver  which  they  may  re- 
spectively represent.  This  usually  explains  the  state  of  the  ex- 
changes; and  this  will  satisfactorily  account  for  the  apparent 
advance  now  existing  on  bills  drawn  on  England.  The  English 
standard  of  value  is  gold ;  with  us  that  office  is  performed  by 
gold,  and  by  silver  also,  at  a  fixed  relation  to  each  other.  But 
our  estimate  of  silver  is  rather  higher,  in  proportion  to  gold,  than 
most  nations  give  it ;  it  is  higher,  especially,  than  in  England,  at 
the  present  moment.  The  consequence  is,  that  silver,  which  re- 
mains a  legal  currency  with  us,  stays  here,  while  the  gold  has 
gone  abroad ;  verifying  the  universal  truth,  that,  if  two  currencies 
be  allowed  to  exist,  of  different  values,  that  which  is  cheapest  will 
fill  up  the  whole  circulation.  For  as  much  gold  a.^  will  suffice 
to  pay  here  a  debt  of  a  given  amount,  we  can  buy  in  England 
more  silver  than  would  be  necessary  to  pay  the  same  debt  here ; 
and  from  this  difference  in  the  value  of  silver  arises  wholly  or  in 
a  great  measure  the  present  apparent  difference  in  exchange. 
Spanish  dollars  sell  now  in  England  for  four  shillings  and  nine 
pence  sterling  per  ounce,  equal  to  one  dollar  and  six  cents.  By 
our  standard  the  same  ounce  is  worth  one  dollar  and  sixteen 
cents,  being  a  difference  of  about  nine  per  cent.  The  true  par 
of  exchange,  therefore,  is  nine  per  cent.  If  a  merchant  here  pay 
one  hundred  Spanish  dollars  for  a  bill  on  England,  at  nominal 
par,  in  sterling  money,  that  is  for  a  bill  of  <£  22  10s.,  the  pro- 
ceeds of  this  bill,  when  paid  in  England  in  the  legal  currency, 


THE  TARIFF.  129 

will  there  purchase,  at  the  present  price  of  silver,  one  hundred 
and  nine  Spanish  dollars.  Therefore,  if  the  nominal  advance 
on  English  bills  do  not  exceed  nine  per  cent.,  the  real  exchange 
is  not  against  this  country ;  in  other  words,  it  does  not  show 
that  there  is  any  pressing  or  particular  occasion  for  the  remit- 
tance of  funds  to  England. 

As  little  can  be  inferred  from  the  occasional  transfer  of  United 
States  stock  to  England.  Considering  the  interest  paid  on  our 
stocks,  the  entire  stability  of  our  credit,  and  the  accumulation  of 
capital  in  England,  it  is  not  at  all  wonderful  that  investments 
should  occasionally  be  made  in  our  funds.  As  a  sort  of  coun- 
tervailing fact,  it  may  be  stated  that  English  stocks  are  now 
actually  held  in  this  country,  though  probably  not  to  any  con- 
siderable amount. 

I  will  now  proceed,  Sir,  to  state  some  objections  of  a  more 
general  nature,  to  the  course  of  Mr.  Speaker's  observations. 

He  seems  to  me  to  argue  the  question  as  if  all  domestic  in- 
dustry were  confined  to  the  production  of  manufactured  articles ; 
as  if  the  employment  of  our  own  capital  and  our  own  labor,  in 
the  occupations  of  commerce  and  navigation,  were  not  as  em- 
phatically domestic  industry  as  any  other  occupation.  Some 
other  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  have  spoken  of  the 
price  paid  for  every  foreign  manufactured  article  as  so  much 
given  for  the  encouragement  of  foreign  labor,  to  the  prejudice  of 
our  own.  But  is  not  every  such  article  the  product  of  our  own 
labor  as  truly  as  if  we  had  manufactured  it  ourselves?  Our 
labor  has  earned  it,  and  paid  the  price  for  it  It  is  so  much 
added  to  the  stock  of  national  wealth.  If  the  commodity  were 
dollars,  nobody  would  doubt  the  truth  of  this  remark;  and  it  is 
precisely  as  correct  in  its  application  to  any  other  commodity  as 
to  silver.  One  man  makes  a  yard  of  cloth  at  home ;  another 
raises  agricultural  products  and  buys  a  yard  of  imported  cloth. 
Both  these  are  equally  the  earnings  of  domestic  industry,  and 
the  only  questions  that  arise  in  the  case  are  two :  the  first  is, 
which  is  the  best  mode,  under  all  the  circumstances,  of  obtain- 
ing the  article ;  the  second  is,  how  far  this  first  question  is 
proper  to  be  decided  by  government,  and  how  far  it  is  proper  to 
be  left  to  individual  discretion.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the 
distinction  which  attributes  to  certain  employments  the  peculiar 


130  THE  TARIFF. 

appellation  of  American  industry  ;  and  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  ex 
tremely  unwise  to  attempt  such  discriminations. 

We  are  asked,  What  nations  have  ever  attained  emincut 
prosperity  without  encouraging  manufactures?  I  may  ask, 
What  nation  ever  reached  the  like  prosperity  without  promot- 
ing foreign  trade?  I  regard  these  interests  as  closely  con- 
nected, and  am  of  opinion  that  it  should  be  our  aim  to  cause 
them  to  flourish  together.  I  know  it  would  be  very  easy  to 
promote  manufactures,  at  least  for  a  time,  but  probably  for  a 
short  time  only,  if  we  might  act  in  disregard  of  other  interests. 
We  could  cause  a  sudden  transfer  of  capital,  and  a  violent' 
change  in  the  pursuits  of  men.  We  could  exceedingly  benefit 
some  classes  by  these  means.  But  what,  then,  becomes  of  the 
interests  of  others  ?  The  power  of  collecting  revenue  by  duties 
on  imports,  and  the  habit  of  the  government  of  collecting  almost 
its  whole  revenue  in  that  mode,  will  enable  us,  without  exceed- 
ing the  bounds  of  moderation,  to  give  great  advantages  to  those 
classes  of  manufactures  which  we  may  think  most  useful  to  pro- 
mote at  home.  What  I  object  to  is  the  immoderate  use  of  the 
power,  —  exclusions  and  prohibitions ;  all  of  which,  as  I  think, 
not  only  interrupt  the  pursuits  of  individuals,  with  great  injury 
to  themselves  and  little  or  no  benefit  to  the  country,  but  also 
often  divert  our  own  labor,  or,  as  it  may  very  properly  be  called, 
our  own  domestic  industry,  from  those  occupations  in  which  it 
is  well  employed  and  well  paid,  to  others  in  which  it  will  be 
worse  employed  and  worse  paid.  For  my  part,  I  see  very  little 
relief  to  those  who  are  likely  to  be  deprived  of  their  employ- 
ments, or  who  find  the  prices  of  ihe  commodities  which  they 
need,  raised,  in  any  of  the  alternatives  which  Mr.  Speaker  has 
presented.  It  is  nothing  to  say  that  they  may',  if  they  choose, 
continue  to  buy  the  foreign  article ;  the  answer  is,  the  price  is 
augmented :  nor  that  they  may  use  the  domestic  article ;  the 
price  of  that  also  is  increased.  Nor  can  they  supply  themselves 
by  the  substitution  of  their  own  fabric.  How  can  the  agricul- 
turist make  his  own  iron  ?  How  can  the  ship-owner  grow  his 
own  hemp  ? 

But  I  have  a  yet  stronger  objection  to  the  course  of  Mr. 
Speaker's  reasoning ;  which  is,  that  he  leaves  out  of  the  case  al] 
that  has  been  already  done  for  the  protection  of  manufactures, 
and  argues  the  question  as  if  those  interests  were  now  for  the 


THE  TARIFF.  131 

first  time  to  receive  aid  from  duties  on  imports.  I  can  hardly 
express  the  surprise  I  feel  that  Mr.  Speaker  should  fall  into  the 
common  mode  of  expression  used  elsewhere,  and  ask  if  we  will 
give  our  manufacturers  no  protection.  Sir,  look  to  the  history 
of  our  laws;  look  to  the  present  state  of  our  laws.  Consider 
that  our  whole  revenue,  with  a  trifling  exception,  is  collected 
at  the  custom-house,  and  always  has  been ;  and  then  say  what 
propriety  there  is  in  calling  on  the  government  for  protection,  as 
if  no  protection  had  heretofore  been  afforded.  The  real  question 
before  us,  in  regard  to  all  the  important  clauses  of  the  bill,  is 
not  whether  we  will  lay  duties,  but  whether  we  will  augment 
duties.  The  demand  is  for  something  more  than  exists,  and 
yet  it  is  pressed  as  if  nothing  existed.  It  is  wholly  forgotten 
that  iron  and  hemp,  for  example,  already  pay  a  very  heavy  and 
burdensome  duty ;  and,  in  short,  from  the  general  tenor  of  Mr. 
Speaker's  observations,  one  would  infer  that,  hitherto,  we  had 
rather  taxed  our  own  manufactures  than  fostered  them  by  taxes 
on  those  of  other  countries.  We  hear  of  the  fatal  policy  of  the 
tariff  of  1816 ;  and  yet  the  law  of  1816  was  passed  avowedly  for 
the  benefit  of  manufacturers,  and,  with  very  few  exceptions,  im- 
posed on  imported  articles  very  great  additions  of  tax ;  in  some 
important  instances,  indeed,  amounting  to  a  prohibition. 

Sir,  on  this  subject,  it  becomes  us  at  least  to  understand  the 
real  posture  of  the  question.  Let  us  not  suppose  that  we  are 
beginning  the  protection  of  manufactures,  by  duties  on  imports. 
What  we  are  asked  to  do  is,  to  render  those  duties  much  higher, 
and  therefore,  instead  of  dealing  in  general  commendations  of 
the  benefits  of  protection,  the  friends  of  the  bill,  I  think,  are 
bound  to  make  out  a  fair  case  for  each  of  the  manufactures 
which  they  propose  to  benefit.  The  government  has  already 
done  much  for  their  protection,  and  it  ought  to  be  presumed  to 
have  done  enough,  unless  it  be  shown,  by  the  facts  and  consider- 
ations applicable  to  each,  that  there  is  a  necessity  for  doing  more. 

On  the  general  question,  Sir,  allow  me  to  ask  if  the  doctrine 
of  prohibition,  as  a  general  doctrine,  be  not  preposterous.  Sup- 
pose all  nations  to  act  upon  it ;  they  would  be  prosperous,  then, 
according  to  the  argument,  precisely  in  the  proportion  in  which 
they  abolished  intercourse  with  one  another.  The  less  of  mu- 
tual commerce  the  better,  upon  this  hypothesis.  Protection  and 
encouragement  may  be,  and  doubtless  are,  sometimes,  wise  and 


132  THE  TARIFF. 

beneficial,  if  kept  within  proper  limits ;  but  when  carried  to  an 
extravagant  height,  or  the  point  of  prohibition,  the  absurd  char- 
acter of  the  system  manifests  itself.  Mr.  Speaker  has  referred  to 
the  late  Emperor  Napoleon,  as  having  attempted  to  naturalize 
the  manufacture  of  cotton  in  France.  He  did  not  cite  a  more 
extravagant  part  of  the  projects  of  that  ruler,  that  is,  his  attempt 
to  naturalize  the  growth  of  that  plant  itself,  in  France ;  whereas, 
we  have  understood  that  considerable  districts  in  the  South  of 
France,  and  in  Italy,  of  rich  and  productive  lands,  were  at  one 
time  withdrawn  from  profitable  uses,  and  devoted  to  raising,  at 
great  expense,  a  little  bad  cotton.  Nor  have  we  been  referred  to 
the  attempts,  under  the  same  system,  to  make  sugar  and  coffee 
from  common  culinary  vegetables ;  attempts  which  served  to 
fill  the  print-shops  of  Europe,  and  to  show  us  how  easy  is  the 
transition  from  what  some  think  sublime  to  that  which  all  ad- 
mit to  be  ridiculous.  The  folly  of  some  of  these  projects  has 
not  been  surpassed,  nor  hardly  equalled,  unless  it  be  by  the  phi- 
losopher in  one  of  the  satires  of  Swift,  who  so  long  labored  to 
extract  sunbeams  from  cucumbers. 

The  poverty  and  unhappiness  of  Spain  have  been  attributed 
to  the  want  of  protection  to  her  own  industry.  If  by  this  it 
be  meant  that  the  poverty  of  Spain  is  owing  to  bad  government 
and  bad  laws,  the  remark  is,  in  a  great  measure,  just.  But  these 
very  laws  are  bad  because  they  are  restrictive,  partial,  and  pro- 
hibitory. If  prohibition  were  protection,  Spain  would  seem  to 
have  had  enough  of  it.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  barbarous  ri- 
gidity of  her  colonial  system,  or  the  folly  of  her  early  commercial 
regulations.  Unenlightened  and  bigoted  legislation,  the  multi- 
tude of  holidays,  miserable  roads,  monopolies  on  the  part  of  gov- 
ernment, restrictive  laws,  that  ought  long  since  to  have  been  ab- 
rogated, are  generally,  and  I  believe  truly,  reckoned  the  principal 
causes  of  the  bad  state  of  the  productive  industry  of  Spain.  Any 
partial  improvement  in  her  condition,  or  increase  of  her  prosper- 
ity, has  been,  in  all  cases,  the  result  of  relaxation,  and  the  aboli- 
tion of  what  was  intended  for  favor  and  protection. 

In  short,  Sir,  the  general  sense  of  this  age  sets,  with  a  strong 
current,  in  favor  of  freedom  of  commercial  intercourse,  and  un- 
restrained individual  action.  Men  yield  up  their  notions  of 
monopoly  and  restriction,  as  they  yield  up  other  prejudices, 
slowly  and  reluctantly ;  but  they  cannot  withstand  the  general 
tide  of  opinion. 


THE  TARIFF.  133 

Let  me  now  ask,  Sir,  what  relief  this  bill  proposes  to  some 
of  those  great  and  essential  interests  of  the  country,  the  condi- 
tion of  which  has  been  referred  to  as  proof  of  national  distress; 
and  which  condition,  although  I  do  not  think  it  makes  out  a 
case  of  distress,  yet  does  indicate  depression. 

And  first,  Sir,  as  to  our  foreign  trade.  Mr.  Speaker  has  stated 
that  there  has  been  a  considerable  falling  off  in  the  tonnage 
employed  in  that  trade.  This  is  true,  lamentably  true.  In  my 
opinion,  it  is  one  of  those  occurrences  which  ought  to  arrest  our 
immediate,  our  deep,  our  most  earnest  attention.  What  does 
this  bill  propose  for  its  relief?  It  proposes  nothing  but  new 
burdens.  It  proposes  to  diminish  its  employment,  and  it  pro- 
poses, at  the  same  time,  to  augment  its  expense,  by  subjecting 
it  to  heavier  taxation.  Sir,  there  is  no  interest,  in  regard  to 
which  a  stronger  case  for  protection  can  be  made  out,  than  the 
navigating  interest.  Whether  we  look  at  its  present  condition, 
which  is  admitted  to  be  depressed,  the  number  of  persons  con- 
nected with  it,  and  dependent  upon  it  for  their  daily  bread,  01 
its  importance  to  the  country  in  a  political  point  of  view,  h 
has  claims  upon  our  attention  which  cannot  be  surpassed.  But 
what  do  we  propose  to  do  for  it  ?  I  repeat,  Sir,  simply  to  bur- 
den and  to  tax  it.  By  a  statement  which  I  have  already  sub- 
mitted to  the  committee,  it  appears  that  the  shipping  interest 
pays,  annually,  more  than  half  a  million  of  dollars  in  duties  on 
articles  used  in  the  construction  of  ships.  We  propose  to  add 
nearly,  or  quite,  fifty  per  cent,  to  this  amount,  at  the  very  mo- 
ment that  we  appeal  to  the  languishing  state  of  this  interest 
as  a  proof  of  national  distress.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  our 
shipping  employed  in  foreign  commerce  has,  at  this  moment, 
not  the  shadow  of  government  protection.  It  goes  abroad  upon 
the  wide  sea  to  make  its  own  way,  and  earn  its  own  bread,  in 
a  professed  competition  with  the  whole  world.  Its  resources  are 
its  own  frugality,  its  own  skill,  its  own  enterprise.  It  hopes  to 
succeed,  if  it  shah1  succeed  at  all,  not  by  extraordinary  aid  of 
government,  but  by  patience,  vigilance,  and  toil.  This  right  arm 
of  the  nation's  safety  strengthens  its  own  muscle  by  its  own 
efforts,  and  by  unwearied  exertion  in  its  own  defence  becomes 
strong  for  the  defence  of  the  country. 

No  one  acquainted  with  this  interest  can  deny  that  its  situa- 
tion, at  this  moment,  is  extremely  critical.  We  have  left  it 

VOL.    III.  12 


134  THE  TARIFF. 

hitherto  to  maintain  itself  or  perish ;  to  swim  if  it  can,  and  to 
sink  if  it  must.  But  at  this  moment  of  its  apparent  struggle, 
can  we  as  men,  can  we  as  patriots,  add  another  stone  to  the 
weight  that  threatens  to  carry  it  down  ?  Sir,  there  is  a  limit  to 
human  power,  and  to  human  effort.  I  know  the  commercial 
marine  of  this  country  can  do  almost  every  thing,  and  bear 
almost  every  thing.  Yet  some  things  are  impossible  to  be  done, 
and  some  burdens  may  be  impossible  to  be  borne ;  and  as  it 
was  the  last  ounce  that  broke  the  back  of  the  camel,  so  the  last 
tax,  although  it  were  even  a  small  one,  may  be  decisive  as  to  the 
power  of  our  marine  to  sustain  the  conflict  in  which  it  is  now 
engaged  with  all  the  commercial  nations  on  the  globe. 

Again,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  failures  and  the  bankruptcies  which 
have  taken  place  in  our  large  cities  have  been  mentioned  as 
proving  the  little  success  attending  commerce,  and  its  general 
decline.  But  this  bill  has  no  balm  for  those  wounds.  It  is  very 
remarkable,  that  when  the  losses  and  disasters  of  certain  manu- 
facturers, those  of  iron,  for  instance,  are  mentioned,  it  is  done  for 
the  purpose  of  invoking  aid  for  the  distressed.  Not  so  with  the 
losses  and  disasters  of  commerce ;  these  last  are  narrated,  and 
not  unfrequently  much  exaggerated,  to  prove  the  ruinous  nature 
of  the  employment,  and  to  show  that  it  ought  to  be  abandoned, 
and  the  capital  engaged  in  it  turned  to  other  objects. 

It  has  been  often  said,  Sir,  that  our  manufacturers  have  to 
contend,  not  only  against  the  natural  advantages  of  those  who 
produce  similar  articles  in  foreign  countries,  but  also  against  the 
action  of  foreign  governments,  who  have  great  political  interest 
in  aiding  their  own  manufactures  to  suppress  ours.  But  have 
not  these  governments  as  great  an  interest  to  cripple  our  marine, 
by  preventing  the  growth  of  our  commerce  and  navigation  ? 
What  is  it  that  makes  us  the  object  of  the  highest  respect,  or 
the  most  suspicious  jealousy,  to  foreign  states?  What  is  it 
that  most  enables  us  to  take  high  relative  rank  among  the  na- 
tions? I  need  not  say  that  this  results,  more  than  from  any 
thing  else,  from  that  quantity  of  military  power  which  we  can 
cause  to  be  water-borne,  and  from  that  extent  of  commerce 
which  we  are  able  to  maintain  throughout  the  world. 

Mr  Chairman,  I  am  conscious  of  having  detained  the  com- 
mittee much  too  long  with  these  observations.  My  apology  for 


THE  TARIFF. 

now  proceeding  to  some  remarks  upon  the  particular  clauses  of 
the  bill  is,  that,  representing  a  district  at  once  commercial  and 
highly  manufacturing,  and  being  called  upon  to  vote  upon  a  bill 
containing  provisions  so  numerous  and  so  various,  I  am  natu- 
rally desirous  to  state  as  well  what  I  approve,  as  what  I  would 
reject. 

The  first  section  proposes  an  augmented  duty  upon  woollen 
manufactures.  This,  if  it  were  unqualified,  would  no  doubt  be 
desirable  to  those  who  are  engaged  in  that  business.  I  have 
myself  presented  a  petition  from  the  woollen  manufacturers  of 
Massachusetts,  praying  an  augmented  ad  valorem  duty  upon 
imported  woollen  cloths ;  and  I  am  prepared  to  accede  to  that 
proposition,  to  a  reasonable  extent.  But  then  this  bill  proposes, 
also,  a  very  high  duty  upon  imported  wool ;  and,  as  far  as  I  can 
learn,  a  majority  of  the  manufacturers  are  at  least  extremely 
doubtful  whether,  taking  these  two  provisions  together,  the  state 
of  the  law  is  not  better  for  them  now  than  it  would  be  if  this 
bill  should  pass.  It  is  said,  this  tax  on  raw  wool  will  benefit 
the  agriculturist ;  but  I  know  it  to  be  the  opinion  of  some  of 
the  best  informed  of  that  class,  that  it  will  do  them  more  hurt 
than  good.  They  fear  it  will  check  the  manufacturer,  and  con- 
sequently check  his  demand  for  their  article.  The  argument  is, 
that  a  certain  quantity  of  coarse  wool,  cheaper  than  we  can 
possibly  furnish,  is  necessary  to  enable  the  manufacturer  to  carry 
on  the  general  business,  and  that  if  this  cannot  be  had,  the  con- 
sequence will  be,  not  a  greater,  but  a  less,  manufacture  of  our 
own  wool.  I  am  aware  that  very  intelligent  persons  differ  upon 
this  point;  but  if  we  may  safely  infer  from  that  difference  of 
opinion,  that  the  proposed  benefit  is  at  least  doubtful,  it  would 
be  prudent  perhaps  to  abstain  from  the  experiment.  Certain 
it  is,  that  the  same  reasoning  has  been  employed,  as  I  have 
before  stated,  on  the  same  subject,  when  a  renewed  application 
was  made  to  the  English  Parliament  to  repeal  the  duty  on  im- 
ported wool,  I  believe  scarcely  two  months  ago ;  those  who  sup- 
ported the  application  pressing  urgently  the  necessity  of  an  unre- 
stricted use  of  the  cheap,  imported  raw  material,  with  a  view  to 
supply  with  coarse  cloths  the  markets  of  warm  climates,  such 
as  those  of  Egypt  and  Turkey,  and  especially  a  vast  newly  cre- 
ated demand  in  the  South  American  states. 

As  to  the  manufactures  of  cotton,  it  is  agreed,  I  believe,  that 


136  THE  TARIFF. 

they  are  generally  successful.  It  is  understood  that  the  present 
existing  duty  operates  pretty  much  as  a  prohibition  over  those 
descriptions  of  fabrics  to  which  it  applies.  The  proposed  altera- 
tion would  probably  enable  the  American  manufacturer  to  com- 
mence competition  with  higher-priced  fabrics ;  and  so,  perhaps, 
would  an  augmentation  less  than  is  here  proposed.  I  consider 
the  cotton  manufactures  not  only  to  have  reached,  but  to  have 
passed,  the  point  of  competition.  I  regard  their  success  as  cer- 
tain, and  their  growth  as  rapid  as  the  most  impatient  could  well 
expect.  If,  however,  a  provision  of  the  nature  of  that  recom- 
mended here  were  thought  necessary,  to  commence  new  opera- 
tions in  the  same  line  of  manufacture,  I  should  cheerfully  agree 
to  it,  if  it  were  not  at  the  cost  of  sacrificing  other  great  interests 
of  the  country.  I  need  hardly  say,  that  whatever  promotes  the 
cotton  and  woollen  manufactures  promotes  most  important  in- 
terests of  my  constituents.  They  have  a  great  stake  in  the  suc- 
cess of  those  establishments,  and,  as  far  as  those  manufactures 
are  concerned,  would  be  as  much  benefited  by  the  provisions  of 
this  bill  as  any  part  of  the  community.  It  is  obvious,  too,  1 
should  think,  that,  for  some  considerable  time,  manufactures  of 
this  sort,  to  whatever  magnitude  they  may  rise,  will  be  princi- 
pally established  in  those  parts  of  the  country  where  population 
is  most  dense,  capital  most  abundant,  and  where  the  most  suc- 
cessful beginnings  have  already  been  made. 

But  if  these  be  thought  to  be  advantages,  they  are  greatly 
counterbalanced  by  other  advantages  enjoyed  by  other  portions 
of  the  country.  I  cannot  but  regard  the  situation  of  the  West 
as  highly  favorable  to  human  happiness.  It  offers,  in  the  abun- 
dance of  its  new  and  fertile  lands,  such  assurances  of  permanent 
property  and  respectability  to  the  industrious,  it  enables  them  to 
lay  such  sure  foundations  for  a  competent  provision  for  their 
families,  it  makes  such  a  nation  of  freeholders,  that  it  need  not 
envy  the  happiest  and  most  prosperous  of  the  manufacturing 
communities.  We  may  talk  as  we  will  of  well-fed  and  well- 
clothed  day -laborers  or  journeymen  ;  they  are  not,  after  all,  to  be 
compared,  either  for  happiness  or  respectability,  with  him  who 
sleeps  under  his  own  roof  and  cultivates  his  own  fee-simple  in- 
heritance. 

With  respect  to  the  proposed  duty  on  glass,  I  would  observe, 
that,  upon  the  best  means  of  judging  which  I  possess,  I  am  of 


THE  TARIFF.  137 

opinion  that  the  chairman  of  the  committee  is  right  in  stating 
that  there  is  in  effect  a  bounty  upon  the  exportation  of  the  Brit- 
ish article.  I  think  it  entirely  proper,  therefore,  to  raise  our  own 
duty  by  such  an  amount  as  shall  be  equivalent  to  that  bounty. 

And  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  before  proceeding  to  those  parts  of 
the  bill  to  which  I  most  strenuously  object,  I  will  be  so  pre- 
sumptuous as  to  take  up  a  challenge  which  Mr.  Speaker  has 
thrown  down.  He  has  asked  us,  in  a  tone  of  interrogatory  in- 
dicative of  the  feeling  of  anticipated  triumph,  to  mention  any 
country  in  which  manufactures  have  flourished  without  the  aid 
of  prohibitory  laws.  He  has  demanded  if  it  be  not  policy,  pro- 
tection, ay,  and  prohibition,  that  have  carried  other  states  to  the 
height  of  their  prosperity,  and  whether  any  one  has  succeeded 
with  such  tame  and  inert  legislation  as  ours.  Sir,  I  am  ready 
to  answer  this  inquiry. 

There  is  a  country,  not  undistinguished  among  the  nations,  in 
which  the  progress  of  manufactures  has  been  far  more  rapid 
than  in  any  other,  and  yet  unaided  by  prohibitions  or  unnatural 
restrictions.  That  country,  the  happiest  which  the  sun  shines 
on,  is  our  own. 

The  woollen  manufactures  of  England  have  existed  from  the 
early  ages  of  the  monarchy.  Provisions  designed  to  aid  and 
foster  them  are  in  the  black-letter  statutes  of  the  Edwards  and 
the  Henrys.  Ours,  on  the  contrary,  are  but  of  yesterday ;  and 
yet,  with  no  more  than  the  protection  of  existing  laws,  they  are 
already  at  the  point  of  close  and  promising  competition.  Sir, 
nothing  is  more  unphilosophical  than  to  refer  us,  on  these  sub- 
jects, to  the  policy  adopted  by  other  nations  in  a  very  different 
state  of  society,  or  to  infer  that  what  was  judged  expedient  by 
them,  in  their  early  history,  must  also  be  expedient  for  us,  in  this 
early  part  of  our  own.  This  would  be  reckoning  our  age  chron- 
ologically, and  estimating  our  advance  by  our  number  of  years ; 
when,  in  truth,  we  should  regard  only  the  state  of  society,  the 
knowledge,  the  skill,  the  capital,  and  the  enterprise  which  belong 
to  our  times.  "We  have  been  transferred  from  the  stock  of  Eu- 
rope, in  a  comparatively  enlightened  age,  and  our  civilization 
and  improvement  date  as  far  back  as  her  own.  Her  original 
history  is  also  our  original  history ;  and  if,  since  the  moment  of 
separation,  she  has  gone  ahead  of  us  in  some  respects,  it  may 
be  said,  without  violating  truth,  that  we  have  kept  up  in  others, 
12* 


138  THE  TARIFF. 

and,  in  others  again,  are  head  ourselves.  We  are  to  legislate, 
then,  with  regard  to  the  present  actual  state  of  society ;  and  our 
own  experience  shows  us,  that,  commencing  manufactures  at  the 
present  highly  enlightened  and  emulous  moment,  we  need  not 
resort  to  the  clumsy  helps  with  which,  in  less  auspicious  times, 
governments  have  sought  to  enable  the  ingenuity  and  industry 
of  their  people  to  hobble  along. 

The  English  cotton  manufactures  began  about  the  com- 
mencement of  the  last  reign.  Ours  can  hardly  be  said  to  have 
commenced,  with  any  earnestness,  until  the  application  of  the 
power-loom,  in  1814,  not  more  than  ten  years  ago.  Now,  Sir,  I 
hardly  need  again  speak  of  its  progress,  its  present  extent,  or  its 
assurance  of  future  enlargement.  In  some  sorts  of  fabrics  we 
are  already  exporters,  and  the  products  of  our  factories  are,  at  this 
moment,  in  the  South  American  markets.  We  see,  then,  what 
can  be  done  without  prohibition  or  extraordinary  protection,  be- 
cause we  see  what  has  been  done ;  and  I  venture  to  predict, 
that,  in  a  few  jears,  it  will  be  thought  wonderful  that  these 
branches  of  manufactures,  at  least,  should  have  been  thought  to 
require  additional  aid  from  government. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  best  apology  for  laws  of  prohibition  and 
laws  of  monopoly  will  be  found  in  that  state  of  society,  not  only 
unenlightened  but  sluggish,  in  which  they  are  most  generally 
established.  Private  industry,  in  those  days,  required  strong 
provocatives,  which  governments  were  seeking  to  administer  by 
these  means.  Something  was  wanted  to  actuate  and  stimulate 
men,  and  the  prospects  of  such  profits  as  would,  in  our  times, 
excite  unbounded  competition,  would  hardly  move  the  sloth  of 
former  ages.  In  some  instances,  no  doubt,  these  laws  produced 
an  effect,  which,  in  that  period,  would  not  have  taken  place 
without  them.  But  our  age  is  of  a  wholly  different  character, 
and  its  legislation  takes  another  turn.  Society  is  full  of  excite 
ment;  competition  comes  in  place  of  monopoly;  and  intelli- 
gence and  industry  ask  only  for  fair  play  and  an  open  field. 
Profits,  indeed,  in  such  a  state  of  things,  will  be  small,  but  they 
will  be  extensively  diffused ;  prices  will  be  low,  and  the  great 
body  of  the  people  prosperous  and  happy.  It  is  worthy  of  re- 
mark, that,  from  the  operation  of  these  causes,  commercial 
wealth,  while  it  is  increased  beyond  calculation  in  its  general 
aggregate,  is,  at  the  same  time,  broken  and  diminished  in  its 


THE  TARIFF.  139 

subdivisions.  Commercial  prosperity  should  be  judged  of,  there- 
fore, rather  from  the  extent  of  trade,  than  from  the  magnitude  of 
its  apparent  profits.  It  has  been  remarked,  that  Spain,  certain- 
ly one  of  the  poorest  nations,  made  very  great  profits  on  the 
amount  of  her  trade ;  but  with  little  other  benefit  than  the  en- 
riching of  a  few  individuals  and  companies.  Profits  to  the 
English  merchants  engaged  in  the  Levant  and  Turkey  trade 
were  formerly  very  great,  and  there  were  richer  merchants  in 
England  some  centuries  ago,  considering  the  comparative  value 
of  money,  than  at  the  present  highly  commercial  period.  When 
the  diminution  of  profits  arises  from  the  extent  of  competition, 
it  indicates  rather  a  salutary  than  an  injurious  change.* 

The  true  course  then,  Sir,  for  us  to  pursue,  is,  in  my  opinion, 
to  consider  what  our  situation  is ;  what  our  means  are ;  and 
how  they  can  be  best  applied.  What  amount  of  population 
have  we  in  comparison  with  our  extent  of  soil,  what  amount  of 
capital,  and  labor  at  what  price  ?  As  to  skill,  knowledge,  and 
enterprise,  we  may  safely  take  it  for  granted  that  in  these  par- 
ticulars we  are  on  an  equality  with  others.  Keeping  these  con- 
siderations in  view,  allow  me  to  examine  two  or  three  of  those 
provisions  of  the  bill  to  which  I  feel  the  strongest  objections. 

To  begin  with  the  article  of  iron.  Our  whole  annual  con- 
sumption of  this  article  is  supposed  by  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee to  be  forty-eight  or  fifty  thousand  tons.  Let  us  suppose 
the  latter.  The  amount  of  our  own  manufacture  he  estimates, 
I  think,  at  seventeen  thousand  tons.  The  present  duty  on  the 
imported  article  is  $  15  per  ton,  and  as  this  duty  causes,  of 
course,  an  equivalent  augmentation  of  the  price  of  the  home 
manufacture,  the  whole  increase  of  price  is  equal  to  $  750,000 
annually.  This  sum  we  pay  on  a  raw  material,  and  on  an  ab- 
solute necessary  of  life.  The  bill  proposes  to  raise  the  duty  from 
$  15  to  $  22.50  per  ton,  which  would  be  equal  to  $  1,125,000  on 
the  whole  annual  consumption.  So  that,  suppose  the  point  of 

*  "  The  present  equable  diffusion  of  moderate  wealth  cannot  be  better  illus- 
trated, than  by  remarking  that  in  this  age  many  palaces  and  superb  mansions 
have  been  pulled  down,  or  converted  to  other  purposes,  while  none  have  been 
erected  on  a  like  scale.  The  numberless  baronial  castles  and  mansions,  in  all 
parts  of  England,  now  in  ruins,  may  all  be  adduced  as  examples  of  the  decrease 
of  inordinate  wealth.  On  the  other  hand,  the  multiplication  of  commodious 
dwellings  for  the  upper  and  middle  classes  of  society,  and  the  increased  comforts 
of  all  ranks,  exhibit  a  picture  of  individual  happiness,  unknown  in  any  other  age.' 
—  Sir  G.  Blane's  Letter  to  Lord  Spencer,  in  1800. 


140  THE  TARIFF. 

prohibition  which  is  aimed  at  by  some  gentlemen  to  be  attained, 
the  consumers  of  the  article  would  pay  this  last-mentioned  sum 
every  year  to  the  producers  of  it,  over  and  above  the  price  at 
which  they  could  supply  themselves  with  the  same  article  from 
other  sources.  There  would  be  no  mitigation  of  this  burden, 
except  from  the  prospect,  whatever  that  might  be,  that  iron 
would  fall  in  value,  by  domestic  competition,  after  the  importa- 
tion should  be  prohibited.  It  will  be  easy,  I  think,  to  show  that 
it  cannot  fall ;  and  supposing  for  the  present  that  it  shall  not,  the 
result  will  be,  that  we  shall  pay  annually  the  sum  of  $  1,125,000, 
constantly  augmented,  too,  by  increased  consumption  of  the  ar- 
ticle, to  support  a  business  that  cannot  support  itself. 

It  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  argument,  that  this  sum  is  ex- 
pended at  home ;  so  it  would  be  if  we  taxed  the  people  to  sup- 
port any  other  useless  and  expensive  establishment,  to  build 
another  Capitol,  for  example,  or  incur  an  unnecessary  expense 
of  any  sort.  The  question  still  is,  Are  the  money,  time,  and 
labor  well  laid  out  in  these  cases  ?  The  present  price  of  iron  at 
Stockholm,  I  am  assured  by  importers,  is  $  53  per  ton  on  board, 
$  48  in  the  yard  before  loading,  and  probably  not  far  from  $  40 
at  the  mines.  Freight,  insurance,  &c.,  may  be  fairly  estimated 
at  $  15,  to  which  add  our  present  duty  of  $  15  more,  and  these 
two  last  sums,  together  with  the  cost  on  board  at  Stockholm, 
give  $  83  as  the  cost  of  Swedes  iron  in  our  market.  In  fact,  it 
is  said  to  have  been  sold  last  year  at  $  81.50  to  $  82  per  ton. 
We  perceive,  by  this  statement,  that  the  cost  of  the  iron  is 
doubled  in  reaching  us  from  the  mine  in  which  it  is  produced. 
In  other  words,  our  present  duty,  with  the  expense  of  transporta- 
tion, gives  an  advantage  to  the  American  over  the  foreign  man-  • 
ufacturer  of  one  hundred  per  cent.  Why,  then,  cannot  the  iron 
be  manufactured  at  home  ?  Our  ore  is  said  to  be  as  good,  and 
some  of  it  better.  It  is  under  our  feet,  and  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  tells  us  that  it  might  be  wrought  by  persons  who 
otherwise  will  not  be  employed.  Why,  then,  is  it  not  wrought  ? 
Nothing  could  be  more  sure  of  constant  sale.  It  is  not  an  arti- 
cle of  changeable  fashion,  but  of  absolute,  permanent  necessity, 
and  such,  therefore,  as  would  always  meet  a  steady  demand. 
Sir,  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
to  revise  his. premises,  for  I  am  persuaded  that  there  is  an  ingre- 
dient properly  belonging  to  the  calculation  which  he  has  mis- 


THE  TARIFF.  141 

stated  or  omitted.  Swedes  iron  in  England  pays  a  duty,  I 
think,  of  about  $  27  per  ton ;  yet  it  is  imported  in  considerable 
quantities,  notwithstanding  the  vast  capital,  the  excellent  coal, 
and,  more  important  than  all  perhaps,  the  highly  improved  state 
of  inland  navigation  in  England  ;  although  I  am  aware  that  the 
English  use  of  Swedes  iron  may  be  thought  to  be  owing  in 
some  degree  to  its  superior  quality. 

Sir,  the  true  explanation  of  this  appears  to  me  to  lie  in  the 
different  prices  of  labor;  and  here  I  apprehend  is  the  grand 
mistake  in  the  argument  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee.  He 
says  it  would  cost  the  nation,  as  a  nation,  nothing,  to  make  our 
ore  into  iron.  Now,  I  think  it  would  cost  us  precisely  that 
which  we  can  worst  afford ;  that  is,  great  labor.  Although  bar- 
iron  is  very  properly  considered  a  raw  material  in  respect  to  its 
various  future  uses,  yet,  as  bar-iron,  the  principal  ingredient  in 
its  cost  is  labor.  Of  manual  labor,  no  nation  has  more  than  a 
certain  quantity,  nor  can  it  be  increased  at  will.  As  to  some 
operations,  indeed,  its  place  may  be  supplied  by  machinery ;  but 
there  are  other  services  which  machinery  cannot  perform  for  it, 
and  which  it  must  perform  for  itself.  A  most  important  ques- 
tion for  every  nation,  as  well  as  for  every  individual,  to  propose 
to  itself,  is,  how  it  can  best  apply  that  quantity  of  labor  which 
it  is  able  to  perform.  Labor  is  the  great  producer  of  wealth ; 
it  moves  all  other  causes.  If  it  call  machinery  to  its  aid,  it  is 
still  employed,  not  only  in  using  the  machinery,  but  in  making 
it.  Now,  with  respect  to  the  quantity  of  labor,  as  we  all  know, 
different  nations  are  differently  circumstanced.  Some  need, 
more  than  any  thing,  work  for  hands,  others  require  hands  for 
work ;  and  if  we  ourselves  are  not  absolutely  in  the  latter  class, 
we  are  still  most  fortunately  very  near  it.  I  cannot  find  that  we 
have  those  idle  hands,  of  which  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
speaks.  The  price  of  labor  is  a  conclusive  and  unanswerable 
refutation  of  that  idea ;  it  is  known  to  be  higher  with  us  than  in 
any  other  civilized  state,  and  this  is  the  greatest  of  all  proofs  of 
general  happiness.  Labor  in  this  country  is  independent  and 
proud.  It  has  not  to  ask  the  patronage  of  capital  but  capital 
solicits  the  aid  of  labor.  This  is  the  general  truth  in  regard  to 
the  condition  of  our  whole  population,  although  in  the  large 
cities  there  are  doubtless  many  exceptions.  The  mere  capacity 
to  laboi  in  common  agricultural  employments,  gives  to  our 


142  THE  TARIFF. 

young  men  the  assurance  of  independence.  We  have  been 
asked,  Sir,  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  in  a  tone  of  some 
pathos,  whether  we  will  allow  to  the  serfs  of  Russia  and  Swe- 
den the  benefit  of  making  iron  for  us.  Let  me  inform  the  gen- 
tleman, Sir,  that  those  same  serfs  do  not  earn  more  than  seven 
cents  a  day,  and  that  they  work  in  these  mines  for  that  compen- 
sation because  they  are  serfs.  And  let  me  ask  the  gentleman 
further,  whether  we  have  any  labor  in  this  country  that  cannot 
be  better  employed  than  in  a  business  which  does  not  yield  the 
laborer  more  than  seven  cents  a  day  ?  This,  it  appears  to  me, 
is  the  true  question  for  our  consideration.  There  i»  no  reason 
for  saying  that  we  will  work  iron  because  we  have  i;  Mintains 
that  contain  the  ore.  We  might  for  the  same  reason  dig  among 
our  rocks  for  the  scattered  grains  of  gold  and  silver  which  might 
be  found  there.  The  true  inquiry  is,  Can  we  produce  the  article 
in  a  useful  state  at  the  same  cost,  or  nearly  at  the  same  cost,  or 
at  any  reasonable  approximation  towards  the  same  cost,  at  which 
Vve  can  import  it  ? 

Some  general  estimates  of  the  price  and  profits  of  labor,  in 
those  countries  from  which  we  import  our  iron,  might  be  formed 
by  comparing  the  reputed  products  of  different  mines,  and  their 
prices,  with  the  number  of  hands  employed.  The  mines  of 
Danemora  are  said  to  yield  about  4,000  tons,  and  to  employ  in 
the  mines  twelve  hundred  workmen.  Suppose  this  to  be  worth 
$  50  per  ton ;  any  one  will  find  by  computation,  that  the  whole 
product  would  not  pay,  in  this  country,  for  one  quarter  part  of 
'the  necessary  labor.  The  whole  export  of  Sweden  was  esti- 
mated, a  few  years  ago,  at  400,000  ship  pounds,  or  about  54,000 
tons.  Comparing  this  product  with  the  number  of  workmen 
usually  supposed  to  be  employed  in  the  mines  which  produce 
iron  for  exportation,  the  result  will  not  greatly  differ  from  the 
foregoing.  These  estimates  are  general,  and  might  not  conduct 
us  to  a  precise  result;  but  we  know,  from  intelligent  travellers, 
and  eyewitnesses,  that  the  price  of  labor  in  the  Swedish  mines 
does  not  exceed  seven  cents  a  day.* 

*  The  price  of  labor  in  Russia  may  be  pretty  well  collected  from  Tooke's 
"View  of  the  Russian  Empire."  "The  workmen  in  the  mines  and  the  foun- 
dries are,  indeed,  all  called  master-people ;  but  they  distinguish  themselves  into 
masters,  under-masters,  apprentices,  delvers,  servants,  carriers,  washers,  and 
separators.  In  proportion  to  their  ability  their  wages  are  regulated,  which  pro- 
ceed from  fifteen  to  upwards  of  thirty  roubles  per  annum.  The  provisions  which 


THE  TARIFF  143 

The  true  reason,  Sir,  why  it  is  not  our  policy  to  compel  our 
citizens  to  manufacture  our  own  iron,  is,  that  they  are  far  better 
employed.  It  is  an  unproductive  business,  and  they  are  not 
poor  enough  to  be  obliged  to  follow  it.  If  we  had  more  of  pov- 
erty, more  of  misery,  and  something  of  servitude,  if  we  had  an 
ignorant,  idle,  starving  population,  we  might  set  up  for  iron 
makers  against  the  world. 

The  committee  will  take  notice,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  under 
our  present  duty,  together  with  the  expense  of  transportation, 
our  manufacturers  are  able  to  supply  their  own  immediate 
neighborhood ;  and  this  proves  the  magnitude  of  that  substan- 
tial encouragement  which  these  two  causes  concur  to  give. 
There  is  little  or  no  foreign  iron,  I  presume,  used  in  the  county 
of  Lancaster.  This  is  owing  to  the  heavy  expense  of  land  car- 
riage ;  and,  as  we  recede  farther  from  the  coast,  the  manufactur- 
ers are  still  more  completely  secured,  as  to  their  own  immediate 
market,  against  the  competition  of  the  imported  article.  But 
what  they  ask  is  to  be  allowed  to  supply  the  sea-coast,  at  such 
a  price  as  shall  be  formed  by  adding  to  the  cost  at  the  mines  the 
expense  of  land  carriage  to  the  sea;  and  this  appears  to  me 
most  unreasonable.  The  effect  of  it  would  be  to  compel  the 
consumer  to  pay  the  cost  of  two  land  transportations;  for,  in 
the  first  place,  the  price  of  iron  at  the  inland  furnaces  will  al- 
ways be  found  to  be  at,  or  not  much  below,  the  price  of  the 
imported  article  in  the  seaport,  and  the  cost  of  transportation  to 
the  neighborhood  of  the  furnace ;  and  to  enable  the  home  prod- 
uct to  hold  a  competition  with  the  imported  in  the  seaport,  the 
cost  of  another  transportation  downward,  from  the  furnace  to 
the  coast,  must  be  added.  Until  our  means  of  inland  commerce 
be  improved,  and  the  charges  of  transportation  by  that  means 
lessened,  it  appears  to  me  wholly  impracticable,  with  such  duties 
as  any  one  would  think  of  proposing,  to  meet  the  wishes  of  the 
manufacturers  of  this  article.  Suppose  we  were  to  add  the 

they  receive  from  the  magazines  are  deducted  from  this  pay."  The  value  of  the 
rouble  at  that  time  (1799)  was  about  twenty-four  pence  sterling,  or  forty-five 
cents  of  our  money. 

"By  the  edict  of  1799,"  it  is  added,  "a  laborer  with  a  horse  shall  receive, 
daily,  in  summer,  twenty,  and  in  winter,  twelve  copecks;  a  laborer  without  a 
horse,  in  summer,  ten,  in  winter,  eight  copecks." 

A  copeck  is  the  hundreth  part  of  a  rouble,  or  about  half  a  cent  of  our  money. 
The  price  of  labor  may  have  risen,  in  some  degree,  since  that  period,  but  proba- 
bly not  much. 


144  THE  TARIFF. 

i 

duty  proposed  by  this  bill,  although  it  would  benefit  the  capital 

invested  in  works  near  the  sea  and  the  navigable  rivers,  yet  the 
benefit  would  not  extend  far  in  the  interior.  Where,  then,  are 
we  to  stop,  or  what  limit  is  proposed  to  us  ? 

The  freight  of  iron  has  been  afforded  from  Sweden  to  the 
United  States  as  low  as  eight  dollars  per  ton.  This  is  not  more 
than  the  price  of  fifty  miles  of  land  carriage.  Stockholm,  there- 
fore, for  the  purpose  of  this  argument,  may  be  considered  as 
within  fifty  miles  of  Philadelphia.  Now,  it  is  at  once  a  just  and 
a  strong  view  of  this  case,  to  consider,  that  there  are,  within  fifty 
miles  of  our  market,  vast  multitudes  of  persons  who  are  willing 
to  labor  in  the  production  of  this  article  for  us,  at  the  rate  of 
seven  cents  per  day,  while  we  have  no  labor  which  will  not  com- 
mand, upon  the  average,  at  least  five  or  six  times  that  amount. 
The  question  is,  then,  shall  we  buy  this  article  of  these  manu- 
facturers, and  suffer  our  own  labor  to  earn  its  greater  reward,  or 
shall  we  employ  our  own  labor  in  a  similar  manufacture,  and 
make  up  to  it,  by  a  tax  on  consumers,  the  loss  which  it  must 
necessarily  sustain. 

I  proceed,  Sir,  to  the  article  of  hemp.  Of  this  we  imported 
last  year,  in  round  numbers,  6,000  tons,  paying  a  duty  of  $  30  a 
ton,  or  $  180,000  on  the  whole  amount;  and  this  article,  it  is  to 
be  remembered,  is  consumed  almost  entirely  in  the  uses  of  nav- 
igation. The  whole  burden  may  be  said  to  fall  on  one  interest. 
It  is  said  we  can  produce  this  article  if  we  will  raise  the  duties. 
But  why  is  it  not  produced  now  ?  or  why,  at  least,  have  we  not 
seen  some  specimens  ?  for  the  present  is  a  very  high  duty,  when 
expenses  of  importation  are  added.  Hemp  was  purchased  at 
St.  Petersburg,  last  year,  at  $  101.67  per  ton.  Charges  attend- 
ing shipment,  &c.,  $  14.25.  Freight  may  be  stated  at  $  30  per 
ton,  and  our  existing  duty  $  30  more.  These  three  last  sums, 
being  the  charges  of  transportation,  amount  to  a  protection  of 
near  seventy-five  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  home  manufacturer, 
if  there  be  any  such.  And  we  ought  to  consider,  also,  that 
the  price  of  hemp  at  St.  Petersburg  is  increased  by  all  the  ex- 
pense of  transportation  from  the  place  of  growth  to  that  port; 
so  that  probably  the  whole  cost  of  transportation,  from  the  place 
of  growth  to  our  market,  including  our  duty,  is  equal  to  the  first 
cost  of  the  article ;  or,  in  other  words,  is  a  protection  in  favor 
of  our  own  product  of  one  hundred  per  cent. 


THE  TARIFF.  145 

And  since  it  is  stated  that  we  have  great  quantities  of  fine 
land  for  the  production  of  hemp,  of  which  I  have  no  doubt,  the 
question  recurs,  Why  is  it  not  produced  ?  I  speak  of  the  water 
rotted  hemp,  for  it  is  admitted  that  that  which  is  dew-rotted  if- 
not  sufficiently  good  for  the  requisite  purposes.  I  cannot  say 
whether  the  cause  be  in  cb'mate,  iri  the  process  of  rotting,  or 
what  else,  but  the  fact  is  certain,  that  there  is  no  American 
water-rotted  hemp  in  the  market.  We  are  acting,  therefore, 
upon  an  hypothesis.  Is  it  not  reasonable  that  those  who  say  that 
they  can  produce  the  article  shall  at  least  prove  the  truth  of  that 
allegation,  before  new  taxes  are  laid  on  those  who  use  the  for- 
eign commodity  ?  Suppose  this  bill  passes ;  the  price  of  hemp 
is  immediately  raised  $  14.80  per  ton,  and  this  burden  falls  im- 
mediately on  the  ship-builder ;  and  no  part  of  it,  for  the  present, 
will  go  for  the  benefit  of  the  American  grower,  because  he  has 
none  of  the  article  that  can  be  used,  nor  is  it  expected  that  much 
of  it  will  be  produced  for  a  considerable  time.  Still  the  tax  takes 
effect  upon  the  imported  article ;  and  the  ship-owners,  to  enable 
the  Kentucky  farmer  to  receive  an  additional  $  14  on  his  ton  of 
hemp,  whenever  he  may  be  able  to  raise  and  manufacture  it, 
pay,  in  the  mean  time,  an  equal  sum  per  ton  into  the  treasury  on 
all  the  imported  hemp  which  they  are  still  obliged  to  use ;  and 
this  is  called  "protection!"  Is  this  just  or  fair?  A  particular 
interest  is  here  burdened,  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  another 
particular  interest,  but  burdened  also  beyond  that,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  treasury.  It  is  said  to  be  important  for  the  country  that 
this  article  should  be  raised  in  it ;  then  let  the  country  bear  the 
expense,  and  pay  the  bounty.  If  it  be  for  the  good  of  the 
whole,  let  the  sacrifice  be  made  by  the  whole,  and  not  by  a  part. 
If  it  be  thought  useful  and  necessary,  from  political  considera- 
tions, to  encourage  the  growth  and  manufacture  of  hemp,  gov- 
ernment has  abundant  means  of  doing  it.  It  might  give  a 
direct  bounty,  and  such  a  measure  would,  at  least,  distribute  the 
burden  equally ;  or,  as  government  itself  is  a  great  consumer  of 
this  article,  it  might  stipulate  to  confine  its  own  purchases  to 
the  home  product,  so  soon  as  it  should  be  shown  to  be  of  the 
proper  quality.  I  see  no  objection  to  this  proceeding,  if  it  be 
thought  to  be  an  object  to  encourage  the  production.  It  might 
easily,  and  perhaps  properly,  be  provided  by  law,  that  the  navy 
should  be  supplied  with  American  hemp,  the  quality  being 

VOL.    III.  13 


146  THE  TARIFF. 

good,  at  any  price  not  exceeding,  by  more  than  a  given  amount, 
the  current  price  of  foreign  hemp  in  our  market.  Every  thing 
conspires  to  render  some  such  course  preferable  to  the  one  now 
proposed.  The  encouragement  in  that  way  would  be  ample, 
and,  if  the  experiment  should  succeed,  the  whole  object  would 
be  gained  ;  and  if  it  should  fail,  no  considerable  loss  or  evil 
would  be  felt  by  any  one. 

J  stated,  some  days  ago,  and  I  wish  to  renew  the  statement, 
what  was  the  amount  of  the  proposed  augmentation  of  the 
duties  on  iron  and  hemp,  in  the  cost  of  a  vessel.  Take  the  case 
of  a  common  ship  of  three  hundred  tons,  not  coppered,  nor  cop- 
per-fastened. It  would  stand  thus,  by  the  present  duties  :  — 


tons  of  iron,  for  hull,  rigging,  and  anchors,  at  $  15 

per  ton,    ......  $217.50 

10  tons  of  hemp,  at  $  30,                 .            .            .  300.00 

40  bolts  Russia  duck,  at  $  2,     .            .            .            .  80.00 

20  bolts  Ravens  duck,  at  $  1.25,      .            .            .  25.00 
On  articles  of  ship-chandlery,  cabin  furniture,  hard- 

ware, &c.,            .....  40.00 

$  662.50 
The  bill  proposes  to  add,  — 

$  7.40  per  ton  on  iron,  which  will  be     .            .            .  $  107.30 

$  14.80  per  ton  on  hemp,  equal  to                .             .  148.00 
And  on  duck,  by  the  late  amendment  of  the  bill,  say 

25  per  cent,        ;.  .         ;.;,       ;   *,           .             .  25.00 

280.30 


But  to  the  duties  on  iron  and  hemp  should  be  added  those 
paid  on  copper,  whenever  that  article  is  used.  By  the  state- 
ment which  I  furnished  the  other  day,  it  appeared  that  the  duties 
received  by  government  on  articles  used  in  the  construction  of 
a  vessel  of  three  hundred  and  fifty-nine  tons,  with  copper  fasten- 
ings, amounted  to  $  1,056.  With  the  augmentations  of  this 
bill,  they  would  be  equal  to  $  1,400. 

Now  I  cannot  but  flatter  myself,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  before 
the  committee  will  consent  to  this  new  burden  upon  the  ship- 
ping interest,  it  will  very  deliberately  weigh  the  probable  conse- 
quences. I  would  again  urgently  solicit  its  attention  to  the  con- 


THE  TARIFF.  147 

dition  of  that  interest.  "We  are  told  that  government  has  pro- 
tected it,  by  discriminating  duties,  and  by  an  exclusive  right  to 
the  coasting  trade.  But  it  would  retain  the  coasting  trade,  by 
its  own  natural  efforts,  in  like  manner,  and  with  more  certainty, 
than  it  now  retains  any  portion  of  foreign  trade.  The  discrimi- 
nating duties  are  now  abolished,  and  while  they  existed,  they 
were  nothing  more  than  countervailing  measures ;  not  so  much 
designed  to  give  our  navigation  an  advantage  over  that  of  other 
nations,  as  to  put  it  upon  an  equality ;  and  we  have,  accordingly, 
abolished  ours,  when  they  have  been  willing  to  abolish  theirs. 
Look  to  the  rate  of  freights.  Were  they  ever  lower,  or  even  so 
low  ?  I  ask  gentlemen  who  know,  whether  the  harbor  of  Charles- 
ton, and  the  river  of  Savannah,  be  not  crowded  with  ships  seek- 
ing employment,  and  finding  none?  I  would  ask  the  gentle- 
men from  New  Orleans,  if  their  magnificent  Mississippi  does 
not  exhibit,  for  furlongs,  a  forest  of  masts?  The  condition,  Sir, 
of  the  shipping  interest  is  not  that  of  those  who  are  insisting  on 
high  profits,  or  struggling  for  monopoly  ;  but  it  is  the  condition 
of  men  content  with  the  smallest  earnings,  and  anxious  for  their 
bread.  The  freight  of  cotton  has  formerly  been  three  pence  ster- 
ling, from  Charleston  to  Liverpool,  in  time  of  peace.  It  is  now 
I  know  not  what,  or  how  many  fractions  of  a  penny^  I  think, 
however,  it  is  stated  at  five  eighths.  The  producers,  then,  of 
this  great  staple,  are  able,  by  means  of  this  navigation,  to  send 
it,  for  a  cent  a  pound,  from  their  own  doors  to  the  best  market 
in  the  world. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  only  remind  the  committee  that, 
while  we  are  proposing  to  add  new  burdens  to  the  shipping  in- 
terest, a  very  different  line  of  policy  is  followed  by  our  great 
commercial  and  maritime  rival.  It  seems  to  be  announced  as 
the  sentiment  of  the  government  of  England,  and  undoubtedly 
it  is  its  real  sentiment,  that  the  first  of  all  manufactures  is  the 
manufacture  of  ships.  A  constant  and  wakeful  attention  is  paid 
to  this  interest,  and  very  important  regulations,  favorable  to  it, 
have  been  adopted  within  the  last  year,  some  of  which  I  will 
beg  leave  to  refer  to,  with  the  hope  of  exciting  the  notice,  not 
only  of  the  committee,  but  of  all  others  who  may  feel,  as  I  do,  a 
deep  interest  in  this  subject.  In  the  first  place,  a  general 
amendment  has  taken  place  in  the  register  acts,  introducing 
many  new  provisions,  and,  among  others,  the  following:  — 


148  THE  TARIFF. 

A  direct  mortgage  of  the  interest  of  a  ship  is  allowed,  with- 
out subjecting  the  mortgagee  to  the  responsibility  of  an  owner 

The  proportion  of  interest  held  by  each  owner  is  exhibited  in 
the  register,  thereby  facilitating  both  sales  and  mortgages,  and 
giving  a  new  value  to  shipping  among  the  moneyed  classes. 

Shares,  in  the  ships  of  copartnerships,  may  be  registered  as 
joint  property,  and  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  other  partnership 
effects. 

Ships  may  be  registered  in  the  name  of  trustees,  for  the  ben- 
efit of  joint-stock  companies. 

And  many  other  regulations  are  adopted,  with  the  same 
general  view  of  rendering  the  mode  of  holding  the  property  as 
convenient  and  as  favorable  as  possible. 

By  another  act,  British  registered  vessels,  of  every  description, 
are  allowed  to  enter  into  the  general  and  the  coasting  trade  in 
the  India  seas,  and  may  now  trade  to  and  from  India,  with  any 
part  of  the  world,  except  China. 

By  a  third,  all  limitations  and  restrictions,  as  to  latitude  and 
longitude,  are  removed  from  ships  engaged  in  the  Southern 
whale-fishery.  These  regulations,  I  presume,  have  not  been 
made  without  first  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  East  India 
Company  ;  so  true  is  it  found,  that  real  encouragement  of  enter- 
prise oftener  consists,  in  our  days,  in  restraining  or  buying  off 
monopolies  and  prohibitions,  than  in  imposing  or  extending 
them. 

The  trade  with  Ireland  is  turned  into  a  free  coasting  trade ; 
light  duties  have  been  reduced,  and  various  other  beneficial  ar- 
rangements made,  and  still  others  proposed.  I  might  add,  that, 
in  favor  of  general  commerce,  and  as  showing  their  confidence 
in  the  principles  of  liberal  intercourse,  the  British  government 
has  perfected  the  warehouse  system,  and  authorized  a  recipro- 
city of  duties  with  foreign  states,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Privy 
Council. 

This,  Sir,  is  the  attention  which  our  great  rival  is  paying  to 
these  important  subjects,  and  we  may  assure  ourselves  that,  if 
we  do  not  cherish  a  proper  sense  of  our  own  interests,  she  will 
not  only  beat  us,  but  will  deserve  to  beat  us. 

Sir,  I  will  detain  you  no  longer.  There  are  some  parts  of 
this  bill  which  I  highly  approve  ;  there  are  others  in  which  I 
should  acquiesce ;  but  those  to  which  I  have  now  stated  my 


THE  TARIFF.  149 

objections  appear  to  me  so  destitute  of  all  justice,  so  burden- 
some and  so  dangerous  to  that  interest  which  has  steadily  en- 
riched, gallantly  defended,  and  proudly  distinguished  us,  that 
nothing  can  prevail  upon  me  to  give  it  my  support.* 

*  Since  the  delivery  of  this  speech,  an  arrival  has  brought  London  papers 
containing  the  speech  of  the  English  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  (Mr.  Robin- 
son), on  the  23d  of  February  last,  in  submitting  to  Parliament  the  annual  finan- 
cial statement.  Abundant  confirmation  will  be  found  in  that  statement  of  the 
remarks  made  in  the  preceding  speech,  as  to  the  prevailing  sentiment,  in  the 
English  government,  on  the  general  subject  of  prohibitory  laws,  and  on  the 
•ilk  manufacture  and  the  wool  tax  particularly. 


13' 


THE    JUDICIARY.* 


AT  the  first  session  of  the  Nineteenth  Congress  a  bill  was  introduced 
into  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  Mr.  Webster,  from  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  which  proposed  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  should  thenceforth  consist  of  a  chief  justice  and  nine  associate 
justices,  and  provided  for  the  appointment  of  three  additional  associate 
justices  of  said  court,  and  that  the  seventh  Judicial  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States  should  consist  of  the  districts  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  ; 
the  eighth  circuit,  of  the  districts  of  Kentucky  and  Missouri ;  the  ninth 
circuit,  of  the  districts  of  Tennessee  and  Alabama ;  and  the  tenth  cir- 
cuit, of  the  districts  of  Louisiana  and  Mississippi. 

It  repealed  so  much  of  any  act  or  acts  of  Congress  as  vested  in  the 
District  Courts  of  the  United  States  in  the  districts  of  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Missouri,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Louisiana,  the  powers  and  jurisdic- 
tion of  Circuit  Courts,  and  provided  that  the  t  should  be  thenceforth 
Circuit  Courts  for  said  districts,  to  be  composed  of  the  justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  assigned  or  allotted  to  the  circuit  to  which  such  districts 
might  respectively  belong,  and  of  the  district  judge  of  such  districts. 

On  this  bill  Mr.  Webster  spoke  as  follows :  — 

THE  bill  which  is  under  the  consideration  of  the  committee 
is  so  simple  in  its  provisions,  and  so  unembarrassed  with  detail, 
that  little  or  rfothing  in  the  way  of  explanation  merely  is  prob- 
ably expected  from  the  committee.  But  the  general  importance 
of  the  subject,  and  the  material  change  which  the  proposed 
measure  embraces,  demands  some  exposition  of  the  reasons 
which  have  led  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  to  submit  it  to 
the  consideration  of  the  House. 

The  occasion  naturally  presents  two  inquiries :  first,  whether 
any  evils  exist  in  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  courts  of 

*  Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
4th  of  January,  1826,  on  the  Bill  to  amend  the  Judiciary  System. 


THE  JUDICIARY.  151 

the  United  States ;  and  secondly,  whether,  if  there  be  such  evils, 
the  proposed  bill  is  a  proper  and  suitable  remedy.  On  both 
these  points  it  is  my  duty  to  express  the  sentiments  which  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary  entertain.  Perhaps,  however,  Mr. 
Chairman,  before  entering  into  a  discussion  of  these  two  ques- 
tions, I  may  be  allowed  to  state  something  of  the  history  of  this 
department  of  the  government,  and  to  advert  to  the  several  laws 
which  have  been,  from  time  to  time,  enacted  respecting  its  or- 
ganization. 

The  judicial  power,  which,  by  the  Constitution,  was  to  be  ex- 
ercised by  the  present  government,  necessarily  engaged  the  at- 
tention of  the  first  Congress.  The  subject  fell  into  the  hands  of 
very  able  men,  and  it  may  well  excite  astonishment  that  the 
system  which  they  prepared  and  recommended,  and  which  was 
adopted  in  the  hurried  session  of  the  summer  of  1789,  has  thus 
far  been  found  to  fulfil,  so  well  and  for  so  long  a  time,  the  great 
purposes  which  it  was  designed  to  accomplish.  The  general 
success  of  the  general  system,  so  far,  may  well  inspire  some  de- 
gree of  caution  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  called  on  to  alter 
or  amend  it. 

By  the  original  act  of  September,  1789,  there  was  to  be  a 
Supreme  Court,  according  to  the  Constitution,  which  was  to 
consist  of  six  judges,  and  to  hold  two  sessions  a  year  at  the 
seat  of  government.  The  United  States,  or  such  of  them  as 
had  then  adopted  the  Constitution,  were  to  be  divided  into  cir- 
cuits and  districts,  and  there  was  to  be  a  District  Court  in  each 
district,  holden  by  a  district  judge.  The  districts  were  divided 
into  three  circuits,  the  Eastern,  the  Middle,  and  the  Southern ; 
and  there  was  to  be  a  Circuit  Court  in  each  district,  to  be  com- 
posed of  two  of  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the 
district  judge  for  the  district.  This  Circuit  Court  was  to  hold 
two  sessions  a  year  in  each  district,  and  I  need  not  inform  the 
committee,  that  the  great  mass  of  business,  excepting  only  that 
of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction,  belonged  to  the  Circuit 
Court  as  a  court  of  original  jurisdiction.  It  entertained  appeals, 
or  writs  of  error,  also,  from  the  decisions  of  the  District  Courts, 
in  all  cases. 

By  this  arrangement,  then,  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court 
were  required  to  hold  two  sessions  of  that  court  annually,  at 
the  seat  of  government,  to  hear  appeals  and  causes  removed  by 


152  THE  JUDICIARY. 

writs  of  error;  and  it  was  required  of  them  also,  that  two  of 
them  should  attend  in  each  district  twice  a  year,  to  hold,  with 
the  district  judge,  a  Circuit  Court. 

It  was  found  that  these  duties  were  so  burdensome,  that  they 
could  not  be  performed.  In  November,  1792,  the  judges  ad- 
dressed the  President  on  the  subject,  (who  laid  their  communi- 
cation before  Congress,)  setting  forth  their  inability  to  perform 
the  services  imposed  on  them  by  law,  without  exertions  and  sac- 
rifices too  great  to  be  expected  from  any  men.  It  was,  doubt? 
less,  this  communication  which  produced  the  law  of  March,  1793, 
by  which  it  was  provided  that  one  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
with  the  district  judge,  should  constitute  the  Circuit  Court 
And,  inasmuch  as  the  courts  would  now  consist  of  two  judges, 
provision  was  made,  perhaps  sufficiently  awkward  and  incon- 
venient, for  the  case  of  difference  of  opinion.  It  will  be  observed, 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  by  these  laws,  thus  far,  particular  justices 
are  not  assigned  to  particular  circuits.  Any  two  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  under  the  first  law,  and  any  one,  under  that  of 
1793,  with  the  district  judge,  constituted  a  Circuit  Court.  A 
change,  or  alternation,  of  the  judges  was  contemplated  by  the 
law.  It  was  accordingly  provided  by  the  act  of  1793,  that,  in 
case  of  division  of  opinion,  as  the  court  consisted  of  but  two 
judges,  the  question  should  be  continued  to  the  next  session, 
and,  if  a  different  judge  then  appeared,  and  his  opinion  coin- 
cided with  that  of  his  predecessor,  judgment  should  go  accord- 
ingly- 

And  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  observe,  that,  in  my  opin- 
ion, the  original  plan  of  holding  the  Circuit  Courts  by  different 
judges,  from  time  to  time,  was  ill-judged  and  founded  on  a 
false  analogy.  It  seems  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Eng- 
lish Courts  of  Assize  and  Nisi  Prius  ;  but  the  difference  in  the 
powers  and  jurisdiction  of  the  judges  in  the  two  cases  rendered 
what  was  proper  for  one  not  a  fit  model  for  the  other.  The 
English  judges  at  Nisi  Prius,  so  far  as  civil  causes  are  con- 
cerned, have  nothing  to  do  but  try  questions  of  fact  by  the  aid 
of  a  jury,  on  issues  or  pleadings  already  settled  in  the  court 
from  which  the  record  proceeds.  They  give  no  final  judgments; 
nor  do  they  make  interlocutory  orders  respecting  the  proceeding 
and  progress  of  the  cause.  They  take  a  verdict  of  the  jury  on 
the  i-ssues  already  joined  between  the  parties,  and  give  no  other 


THE  JUDICIARY.  153 

directions  in  matters  of  law,  than  such  as  become  necessary  in 
the  course  of  this  trial  by  jury.  Every  case  begun,  therefore,  is 
ordinarily  finished.  Nothing  of  that  case  remains  for  the  judge's 
successor.  If  it  be  tried,  the  record  is  taken  back  with  the  ver- 
dict to  Westminster  Hall ;  if  it  be  not  tried,  the  whole  case 
remains  for  a  subsequent  occasion.  It  is,  perhaps,  surprising, 
that  the  very  able  men  who  framed  the  first  judicial  act  did  not 
see  the  great  difference  between  this  manner  of  proceeding  at 
the  English  Assizes,  and  the  necessary  course  of  proceeding  in 
our  Circuit  Courts,  with  the  powers  and  jurisdictions  conferred 
on  those  courts.  These  are  courts  of  final  jurisdiction;  they  not 
only  take  verdicts,  but  give  judgments.  Here  suits  are  brought, 
proceeded  with  through  all  their  stages,  tried,  and  finally  deter- 
mined. And  as,  in  the  progress  of  suits,  especially  those  of 
equity  jurisdiction,  it  necessarily  happens  that  there  are  different 
stages,  and  successive  orders  become  necessary  from  term  to 
term,  it  happened,  of  course,  that  the  judge  was  often  changed 
before  the  cause  was  decided ;  he  who  heard  the  end  had  not 
heard  the  beginning.  When  to  this  is  added,  that  these  judges 
were  bred  in  different  schools,  and,  as  to  matters  of  practice,  es- 
pecially, accustomed  to  different  usages,  it  will  be  easy  to  per- 
ceive that  no  small  difficulties  were  to  be  encountered  in  the 
ordinary  despatch  of  business.  So,  in  cases  reserved  for  advise- 
ment and  further  consideration,  the  judge  reserving  the  question 
was  not  the  judge  to  decide  it.  He  who  heard  the  argument 
was  not  to  make  the  decision.  Without  pursuing  this  part  of 
the  case  farther,  it  is  quite  obvious  that  such  a  system  could  not 
answer  the  ends  of  justice.  The  courts,  indeed,  were  called  Cir- 
cuit Courts,  which  seemed  to  imply  an  itinerant  character  ;  but, 
in  truth,  they  resembled  much  more,  in  their  power  and  jurisdic- 
tion, the  English  courts  sitting  in  bench,  than  the  Assizes,  to 
which  they  appear  to  have  been  likened. 

The  act  of  1793,  by  requiring  the  attendance  of  only  one,  in- 
stead of  two,  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  cir- 
cuits, of  course  diminished  by  one  half  the  circuit  labors  of  those 
judges. 

We  then  come  to  the  law  of  February,  1801.  By  this  act, 
the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  were  relieved  from  all  circuit 
duties.  Provision  was  made  that  their  number  should  be  re- 
duced, on  the  first  vacancy,  from  six  to  five.  They  were  still  to 


154  THE  JUDICIARY. 

N 

hold  two  sessions  annually  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  circuit 
judges  were  appointed  to  hold  the  Circuit  Court  in  each  district. 
The  provisions  of  this  law  are  generally  known,  and  it  is  not 
necessary  to  recite  them  particularly.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that, 
in  five  of  the  six  circuits,  the  Circuit  Court  was  to  consist  of 
three  judges,  specially  appointed  to  constitute  such  court ;  and 
in  the  sixth,  of  one  judge,  specially  appointed,  and  the  district 
judge  of  the  district. 

We  all  know,  Sir,  that  this  law  lasted  but  a  twelvemonth.  It 
was  repealed  in  toto  by  the  act  of  the  8th  of  March,  1802 ;  and  a 
new  organization  of  the  Circuit  Courts  was  provided  for  by  the 
act  of  the  29th  of  April  of  that  year.  It  must  be  admitted,  I 
think,  Sir,  that  this  act  made  considerable  improvements  upon 
the  system,  as  it  existed  before  the  act  of  February,  1801.  It  took 
away  the  itinerary  character  of  the  Circuit  Courts,  by  assigning 
particular  justices  to  particular  circuits.  This,  in  my  opinion, 
was  a  great  improvement.  It  conformed  the  constitution  of  the 
court  to  the  nature  of  the  powers  which  it  exercised.  The  same 
judges  now  heard  the  cause  through  all  the  stages  of  its  progress, 
and  the  court  became,  what  its  duties  properly  made  it,  a  court 
of  record,  with  permanent  judges,  exercising  a  various  jurisdic- 
tion, trying  causes  at  its  bar  by  jury,  in  cases  proper  for  the  in- 
tervention of  a  jury,  and  rendering  final  judgments.  This  act 
also  provided  another  mode  of  proceeding  with  cases  in  which 
the  two  judges  composing  the  Circuit  Court  should  differ  in 
opinion.  It  prescribed,  that  such  difference  should  be  stated, 
certified  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  that  that  court  should  de 
cide  the  question,  and  certify  its  decision  to  the  Circuit  Court. 

In  this  state  of  things,  the  judicial  system  remained,  without 
material  change,  until  the  year  1807,  when  a  law  was  passed 
for  the  appointment  of  an  additional  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  a  circuit  allotted  to  him  in  the  Western  States. 

It  may  be  here  observed,  that,  from  the  commencement,  the 
system  has  not  been  uniform.  From  the  first,  there  was  an 
anomaly  in  it.  By  the  original  act  of  September,  1789,  a  Dis- 
trict Court  was  established  for  Kentucky  (then  part  of  Virginia) 
and  for  Maine  (then  part  of  Massachusetts),  and,  in  addition  to 
the  powers  of  District  Courts,  there  was  conferred  on  these  all 
the  jurisdiction  which  elsewhere  belongs  to  Circuit  Courts,  and, 
in  other  cases,  as'  new  States  were  added  to  the  Union,  District 


THE  JUDICIARY.  15<? 

Courts  were  established  with  the  powers  of  Circuit  Courts. 
The  same  thing  has  happened,  too,  when  States  have  been  di- 
vided into  two  districts.  There  are,  at  present,  several  State? 
which  have  no  Circuit  Court  except  the  District  Court,  and 
there  are  other  States  which  are  divided  into  more  than  one  dis- 
trict, and  in  some  of  which  Districts  there  is  but  a  District  Cour 
with  Circuit  Court  jurisdiction ;  so  that  it  cannot  be  said  tha 
the  system  has  been  at  any  time  entirely  uniform. 

So  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  history  of  our  legislation  on 
the  judicial  department. 

I  am  not  aware,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there  is  any  public  com- 
plaint of  the  operation  of  the  present  system,  so  far  as  it  applies 
to  the  Atlantic  States.  So  far  as  I  know,  justice  has  been  ad 
ministered  efficiently,  promptly,  and  satisfactorily,  in  all  thost 
circuits.  The  judges,  perhaps,  have  a  good  deal  of  employment: 
but  they  have  been  able  to  go  through  their  arduous  duties  in 
such  manner  as  to  leave  no  cause  of  complaint,  as  far  as  I  am 
informed.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  not  sanguine  enough  to  ex- 
pect, as  far  as  those  circuits  are  concerned,  that  any  improve- 
ment can  be  made.  In  my  opinion,  none  is  needed.  But  it  is 
not  so  in  the  Western  States.  Here  exists  a  great  deficiency. 
The  country  has  outgrown  the  system.  This  is  no  man's  fault, 
nor  does  it  impute  want  of  usual  foresight  to  any  one.  It  would 
have  seemed  chimerical  in  the  framers  of  the  law  of  1789,  if  they 
had  professed  to  strike  out  a  plan  which  should  have  been  ade- 
quate to  the  exigencies  of  the  country,  as  it  actually  exists  in  1826. 
From  a  period  as  far  back  as  the  close  of  the  late  war,  the  peo- 
ple of  the  West  have  applied  to  Congress  on  the  subject  of  the 
courts.  No  session  of  Congress  has  passed  without  an  attempt, 
in  one  or  the  other  house,  to  produce  some  change;  and  al- 
though various  projects  have  been  presented,  the  inherent  diffi- 
culties of  the  subject  have  prevented  any  efficient  action  of  the 
legislature.  I  will  state  shortly,  Sir,  and  as  nearly  as  I  remem- 
ber, what  has  been  at  different  times  proposed. 

In  the  first  place,  it  has  been  proposed  to  recur  to  the  system 
of  Circuit  Courts,  upon  the  principle,  although  not  exactly  after 
the  model,  of  the  act  of  February,  1801.  A  bill  of  this  charac- 
ter passed  the  Senate  in  1819,  dividing  the  country  into  nine 
circuits,  and  providing  for  the  appointment  of  one  circuit  judge 
to  each  circuit,  who  with  the  district  judge  of  the  district  should 


J56  T^E  JUDICIARY. 

constitute  the  Circuit  Court.  It  also  provided,  that  the  Su- 
preme Court,  as  vacancies  should  occur,  should  be  reduced  to 
five  members.  This  bill,  I  believe,  was  not  acted  upon  in  this 
House.  Again,  it  has  been  proposed  to  constitute  Circuit  Courts 
by  the  union  of  the  district  judges  in  the  circuit.  It  has  been 
proposed,  also,  to  extend  the  existing  system  somewhat  in  con- 
formity to  the  object  of  the  present  bill,  by  adding  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  judges  in  the  Supreme  Court.  And  a  different  ar- 
rangement still  has  been  suggested,  which  contemplates  the 
appointment  of  circuit  judges  for  some  districts,  and  the  con- 
tinued performance  of  circuit  duties  by  the  supreme  judges  in 
others,  with  such  legal  provision  as  shall  not  attach  the  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  performance  of  their  circuit  duties, 
unequally  to  any  part  of  the  country,  but  allow  them  to  be  dis- 
tributed equally  and  fairly  over  the  whole.  This  system,  though 
somewhat  complex,  and  perhaps  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  is, 
I  confess,  what  appears  to  me  best  of  all  suited  to  our  condition. 
It  would  not  make  the  Supreme  Court  too  numerous ;  and  it 
would  still  require  from  its  members  the  performance  of  circuit 
duties ;  it  would  allow  a  proper  distribution  of  these  members 
to  every  part  of  the  country ;  and,  finally,  it  would  furnish  an 
adequate  provision  for  the  despatch  of  business  in  the  Circuit 
Courts.  Upon  this  plan,  a  bill  was  presented  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  at  the  first  session  of  the  last  Congress,  but  it 
did  not  meet  with  general  favor ;  and  the  fate  of  a  similar  prop- 
osition elsewhere,  at  a  subsequent  period,  discourages  any  revi- 
val of  it. 

I  now  come,  Sir,  to  consider  whether  any,  and  what,  evils  ex- 
ist; and  then,  whether  the  present  bill  be  a  suitable  remedy. 
And  in  the  first  place,  it  is  said,  perhaps  with  some  justice,  that 
the  business  of  the  Supreme  Court  itself  is  not  gone  through 
with  sufficient  promptitude  ;  that  it  is  accumulating ;  that  great 
delays  are  experienced,  and  greater  delays  feared.  As  to  this,  I 
would  observe,  that  the  annual  session  of  the  court  cannot  last 
above  six  or  seven  weeks,  because  it  commences  in  February, 
and  the  circuit  duties  of  the  judges  require  them  to  leave  this 
place  the  latter  part  of  March.  But  I  know  no  reason  why  the 
judges  should  not  assemble  earlier.  I  believe  it  would  not  ma- 
terially interfere  with  their  circuit  duties,  to  commence  the  ses- 
sion here  in  the  early  part  of  January;  and  if  that  were  the  case, 


THE  JUDICIARY.  157 

I  have  little  doubt  that,  in  two  years,  they  would  clear  the 
docket.  A  bill  to  make  this  change  passed  this  House  two 
years  ago ;  I  regret  to  say,  it  was  not  acted  upon  in  the  Senate. 

As  to  returning  to  the  original  practice  of  having  two  sessions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  within  the  year,  I  incline  to  think  it 
wholly  inexpedient.  The  inconvenience  arising  from  the  dis- 
tance of  suitors  and  counsel  from  the  seat  of  government  forms 
a  decisive  objection  to  that  proposition. 

The  great  evil,  however,  Sir,  at  present  experienced,  and  that 
which  calls  most  loudly  and  imperatively  for  a  remedy,  is  the 
state  of  business  in  the  Circuit  Courts  in  the  Western  States. 
The  seventh  circuit  consists  of  Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Tennessee. 
All  the  other  Western  States  have  District  Courts,  with  the 
powers  of  Circuit  Courts.  I  am  clearly  of  opinion,  that  some  fur- 
ther provision  is  required  of  us  for  the  administration  of  justice 
in  these  States.  The  existing  means  are  not  equal  to  the  end. 
The  judicial  organization  is  not  competent  to  exercise  the  juris- 
diction which  the  laws  confer  upon  it.  There  is  a  want  of  men, 
and  a  want  of  time.  In  this  respect,  it  appears  to  me  that  our 
constitutional  duty  is  very  plain.  The  Constitution  confers  cer- 
tain judicial  powers  on  the  government  of  the  United  States ; 
we  undertake  to  provide  for  the  exercise  of  these  powers ;  but 
the  provision  is  inadequate,  and  the  powers  are  not  exercised. 
By  the  Constitution,  the  judicial  power  of  this  government  ex- 
tends, as  well  as  to  other  things,  to  causes  between  citizens  of 
different  States.  We  open  courts  professedly  to  exercise  that 
jurisdiction ;  but  they  are  not  competent  to  it ;  it  is  not  exer- 
cised with  reasonable  promptitude ;  the  suitor  is  delayed,  and 
the  end  of  the  constitutional  provision,  in  some  measure,  defeat- 
ed. Now,  it  appears  to  me  very  plain,  that  we  should  either 
refuse  to  confer  this  jurisdiction  on  the  courts,  or  that  we  should 
so  constitute  them  that  it  may  be  efficiently  exercised. 

I  hold,  Sir,  the  certificate  of  the  clerk  for  the  District  and  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  the  District  of  Kentucky,  that  there  are  now  pend- 
ing in  those  courts  nine  hundred  and  fifty  causes.  As  this  13 
not  a  maritime  district,  most  of  these  causes,  doubtless,  are  in 
the  Circuit  Court.  This  accumulation  .has  not  arisen  from  any 
want  of  diligence  in  the  judges  themselves,  for  the  same  papei 
states,  that  two  thousand  causes  have  been  disposed  of  within 
the  last  three  years.  The  Memorial  of  the  Bar  of  Nashville  in- 

VOL.  in.  14 


158  THE  JUDICIARY. 

forms  us  that  one  hundred  and  sixty  cases  are  pending  in  the 
Circuit  Court  for  the  Western  District  of  Tennessee ;  a  num- 
ber, perhaps,  not  much  less,  is  on  the  docket  of  the  court  for  the 
Eastern  District  of  Tennessee;  and  I  am  authorized  to  state 
that  two  hundred  or  two  hundred  and  fifty  may  be  taken  as  the 
number  of  suits  pending  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Ohio.  These 
three  States,  Sir,  constitute  one  circuit ;  they  extend  over  a  wide 
region ;  the  places  for  holding  the  courts  are  at  vast  distances 
from  one  another ;  and  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  man,  that  the 
judge  assigned  to  this  circuit  should  get  through  the  duties  of  his 
station.  With  the  state  of  the  courts  in  the  other  Western  and 
Southwestern  States,  I  am  not  so  particularly  acquainted.  Gen- 
tlemen from  those  States  will  make  it  known  to  the  committee. 
I  know  enough,  however,  to  be  satisfied  that  the  whole  case  calls 
for  attention.  It  grows  no  better  by  delay,  and,  whatever  diffi- 
culties embarrass  it,  we  may  as  well  meet  them  at  once,  and  agree 
upon  such  remedy  as  shall,  upon  the  whole,  seem  most  expedient. 

And  this,  Sir,  brings  me  to  the  most  difficult  part  of  our  in- 
quiry ;  that  is  to  say,  whether  such  a  measure  as  this  bill  pro- 
poses be  the  proper  remedy.  I  beg  to  say,  Sir,  that  I  feel  this 
difficulty  as  deeply  as  it  can  be  felt  by  any  member  of  the  com- 
mittee ;  and  while  I  express  my  own  opinions,  such  as  they  are, 
I  shall  be  most  happy  to  derive  light  from  the  greater  experi- 
ence, or  the  better  intelligence,  of  any  gentleman.  To  me  it 
appears,  that  we  are  brought  to  the  alternative  of  deciding  be- 
tween something  like  what  this  bill  proposes,  and  the  Circuit 
Court  system,  as  provided  in  the  bill  of  the  Senate  in  1819. 
As  a  practical  question,  I  think  it  has  come  to  this  point :  Shall 
we  extend  the  present  system,  by  increasing  the  number  of  the 
judges,  or  shall  we  recur  to  the  system  of  Circuit  Courts  ?  I  in- 
voke the  attention  of  the  committee  to  this  question,  because, 
thinking  the  one  or  the  other  inevitable,  I  wish  for  the  mature 
judgment  of  the  House  on  both. 

In  favor  of  the  Circuit  Court  system,  it  may  be  said,  that  it  is 
uniform,  and  may  be  made  to  apply  to  all  the  States  equally; 
so  that  if  new  States  come  into  the  Union,  Circuit  Courts  may 
be  provided  for  them  without  derangement  to  the  general  organ- 
ization. This,  doubtless,  is  a  consideration  entitled  to  much 
weight.  It  is  said,  also,  that  by  separating  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  from  the  circuits,  we  shall  leave  them  ample 


THE  JUDICIARY.  159 

time  for  the  discharge  of  the  high  duties  of  their  appellate  juris- 
diction. This,  no  doubt,  is  true ;  but  then,  whether  it  be  desira- 
ble, upon  the  whole,  to  withdraw  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  from  the  circuits,  and  to  confine  their  labors  entirely  to 
the  sessions  at  Washington,  is  a  question  which  has  most  deeply 
occupied  my  reflections,  and  in  regard  to  which  I  am  free  to 
confess  some  change  has  been  wrought  in  my  opinions.  With 
entire  respect  for  the  better  judgment  of  others,  and  doubting, 
therefore,  when  I  find  myself  differing  from  those  who  are  wiser 
and  more  experienced,  I  am  still  constrained  to  say,  that  my 
judgment  is  against  withdrawing  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  from  the  circuits,  if  it  can  be  avoided.  The  reasons 
which  influence  this  sentiment  are  general,  and  perhaps  may  be 
thought  too  indefinite  and  uncertain  to  serve  as  a  guide  in  meas- 
ures of  public  importance ;  they  nevertheless  appear  to  me  to 
have  weight,  and  I  will  state  them  with  frankness,  in  the  hope 
that,  if  they  are  without  reasonable  foundation,  they  will  be 
shown  to  be  so,  when  certainly  I  shall  cheerfully  relinquish  them. 
In  the  first  place,  it  appears  to  me  that  such  an  intercourse  as 
the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  enabled  to  have  with  the 
profession,  and  with  the  people,  in  their  respective  circuits,  is 
itself  an  object  of  no  inconsiderable  importance.  It  naturally 
inspires  respect  and  confidence,  and  it  produces  a  reciprocal 
communication  of  information  through  all  the  branches  of  the 
judicial  department.  This  leads  to  a  harmony  of  opinion  and 
of  action.  The  Supreme  Court,  by  itself,  is  in  some  measure 
insulated;  it  has  not  frequent  occasions  of  contact  with  the 
community.  The  bar  that  attends  it  is  neither  numerous  nor 
regular  in  its  attendance.  The  gentlemen  who  appear  before  it, 
in  the  character  of  counsel,  come  for  the  occasion,  and  depart 
with  the  occasion.  The  profession  is  occupied  mainly  in  the 
objects  which  engage  it  in  its  own  domestic  forums ;  it  belongs 
to  the  States,  and  their  tribunals  furnish  its  constant  and  prin- 
cipal theatre.  If  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  therefore, 
are  wholly  withdrawn  from  the  circuits,  it  appears  to  me  there 
is  danger  of  leaving  them  without  the  means  of  useful  inter- 
course with  other  judicial  characters,  with  the  profession  of 
which  they  are  members,  and  with  the  public.  But,  without 
pursuing  these  general  reflections,  I  would  say,  in  the  second 
place,  that  I  think  it  useful  that  judges  should  see  in  practice 


160  THE  JUDICIARY. 

the  operation  and  effect  of  their  own  decisions.  This  will  pre- 
vent theory  from  running  too  far,  or  refining  too  much.  We 
find,  in  legislation,  that  general  provisions  of  law,  however  cau- 
tiously expressed,  often  require  limitation  and  modification. 
Something  of  the  same  sort  takes  place  in  judicature.  How- 
ever beautiful  may  be  the  theory  of  general  principles,  such 
is  the  infinite  variety  of  human  affairs,  that  those  most  practised 
in  them  and  conversant  with  them  see  at  every  turn  a  necessity 
of  imposing  restraints  and  qualifications  on  such  principles. 
The  daily  application  of  their  own  doctrines  will  necessarily  in- 
spire courts  with  caution ;  and,  by  a  knowledge  of  what  takes 
place  upon  the  circuits  and  occurs  in  constant  practice,  they  will 
be  able  to  decide  finally,  without  the  imputation  of  having  over- 
looked, or  not  understood,  any  of  the  important  elements  and 
ingredients  of  a  just  decision. 

But  further,  Sir,  I  must  take  the  liberty  of  saying,  that,  in  re- 
gard to  the  judicial  office,  constancy  of  employment  is  of  itself, 
in  my  judgment,  a  good,  and  a  great  good.  I  appeal  to  the  con- 
viction of  the  whole  profession,  if,  as  a  general  rule,  they  do  not 
find  that  those  judges  who  decide  most  causes  decide  them  best. 
Exercise  strengthens  and  sharpens  the  faculties  in  this  more 
than  in  almost  any  other  employment.  I  would  have  the  judi- 
cial office  filled  by  him  who  is  wholly  a  judge,  always  a  judge, 
and  nothing  but  a  judge.  With  proper  seasons,  of  course,  for 
recreation  and  repose,  his  serious  thoughts  should  all  be  turned 
to  his  official  duties ;  he  should  be  omnis  in  hoc.  I  think,  Sir, 
there  is  hardly  a  greater  mistake  than  has  prevailed  occasionally 
in  some  of  the  States,  of  creating  many  judges,  assigning  them 
duties  which  occupy  but  a  small  part  of  their  time,  and  then 
making  this  the  ground  for  allowing  them  a  small  compensation. 
The  judicial  power  is  incompatible  with  any  other  pursuit  in 
life  ;  and  all  the  faculties  of  every  man  who  takes  it  ought  to  be 
constantly  exercised,  and  exercised  to  one  end.  Now,  Sir,  it  is 
natural,  that,  in  reasoning  on  this  subject,  I  should  take  my 
facts  from  what  passes  within  my  own  means  of  observation. 
If  I  am  mistaken  in  my  premises,  the  conclusion,  of  course, 
ought  to  be  rejected.  But  I  suppose  it  will  be  safe  to  say,  that 
a  session  of  eight  weeks  in  the  year  will  probably  be  sufficient 
for  the  decision  of  causes  in  the  Supreme  Court ;  and,  reasoning 
from  what  exists  in  one  of  the  most  considerable  circuits  in  the 


THE  JUDICIARY.  161 

Atlantic  States,  I  suppose  that  eight,  ten,  or  at  most  twelve 
weeks,  may  be  the  average  of  the  time  requisite  to  be  spent  by 
a  circuit  judge  in  his  court  in  those  circuits.  If  this  be  so,  then, 
if  the  courts  be  separated,  we  have  supreme  judges  occupied 
two  months  out  of  twelve,  and  circuit  judges  occupied  three 
months  out  of  twelve.  In  my  opinion,  this  is  not  a  system 
either  to  make  or  to  keep  good  judges.  The  Supreme  Court 
exercises  a  great  variety  of  jurisdiction.  It  reverses  decisions  at 
common  law,  in  equity,  and  in  admiralty ;  and  with  the  theory 
and  the  practice  of  all  these  systems  it  is  indispensable  that  the 
judges  should  be  accurately  and  intimately  acquainted.  It  is 
for  the  committee  to  judge  how  far  the  withdrawing  them  from, 
the  circuits,  and  confining  them  to  the  exercise  of  an  appellate 
jurisdiction,  may  increase,  or  diminish  this  information.  But, 
again,  Sir,  we  have  a  great  variety  of  local  laws  existing  in  this 
country,  which  are  the  standard  of  decision  where  they  prevail. 
The  laws  of  New  England,  Maryland,  Louisiana,  and  Ken- 
tucky are  almost  so  many  different  codes.  These  laws  are  to  be 
construed  and  administered,  in  many  cases,  in  the  courts  of  the 
United  States.  Is  there  any  doubt  that  a  judge  coming  on  the 
bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  with  a  familiar  acquaintance  with 
these  laws,  derived  from  daily  practice  and  decisions,  must  be 
more  able  both  to  form  his  own  judgment  correctly,  and  to  assist 
that  of  his  brethren,  than  a  stranger  who.  only  looks  at  the  the- 
ory ?  This  is  a  point  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Of  the  weight 
of  the  suggestion  the  committee  will  judge.  It  appears  to  me,  I 
confess,  that  a  court  remotely  situated,  a  stranger  to  these  local 
laws  in  their  application  and  practice,  with  whatever  diligence 
or  with  whatever  ability,  must  be  liable  to  fall  into  great  mistakes. 
May  I  ask  your  indulgence,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  suggest  one 
other  idea.  With  no  disposition  whatever  to  entertain  doubts 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  executive  duty  of  appointments 
shall  at  any  time  hereafter  be  performed,  the  Supreme  Court  is 
so  important,  that,  in  whatever  relates  to  it,  I  am  willing  to  make 
assurance  doubly  sure,  and  to  adopt,  therefore,  whatever  fairlv 
comes  in  my  way  likely  to  increase  the  probability  that  able  and 
efficient  men  will  be  placed  upon  that  bench.  Now  I  confess 
that  I  know  nothing  which  I  think  more  conducive  to  that  end 
than  the  assigning  to  the  members  of  that  court  important,  re- 
sponsible, individual  duties.  Whatsoever  makes  the  individual 
14* 


THE  JUDICIARY. 

prominent,  conspicuous,  and  responsible  increases  the  proba- 
bill  hy  that  he  will  be  some  one  possessing  the  proper  requisites 
for  a  judge.  It  is  one  thing  to  give  a  vote  upon  a  bench  (es- 
pecially if  it  be  a  numerous  bench)  for  plaintiff  or  defendant, 
and  quite  another  thing  to  act  as  the  head  of  a  court  of  various 
jurisdiction,  civil  and  criminal,  to  conduct  trials  by  jury,  and 
render  judgments  in  law,  equity,  and  admiralty.  While  these 
duties  belong  to  the  condition  of  a  judge  on  the  bench,  that 
place  will  not  be  a  sinecure,  nor  likely  to  be  conferred  without 
proofs  of  proper  qualifications.  For  these  reasons,  I  am  inclined 
to  wish  that  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  not  be  sep- 
arated from  the  circuits,  if  any  other  suitable  provision  can  be 
made. 

As  to  the  present  bill,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  will  doubtless  be  ob- 
jected, that  it  makes  the  Supreme  Court  too  numerous.  In 
regard  to  that,  I  am  bound  to  say  that  my  own  opinion  was, 
that  the  present  exigency  of  the  country  could  have  been  an- 
swered by  the  addition  of  two  members  to  the  court.  I  believe 
the  three  Northwestern  States  might  well  enough  go  on  for  some 
time  longer,  and  form  a  circuit  of  themselves,  perhaps,  hereaf- 
ter, as  the  population  shall  increase,  and  the  state  of  their  affairs 
require  it.  The  addition  of  the  third  judge  is  what  I  assent  to, 
rather  than  what  I  recommend.  It  is  what  I  would  gladly 
avoid,  if  I  could  with  propriety.  I  admit  that,  for  some  causes, 
the  court  as  constituted  by  the  bill  will  be  inconveniently  large ; 
for  such,  especially,  as  require  investigation  into  matters  of  fact, 
such  as  those  of  equity  and  admiralty,  and  perhaps  for  all  pri- 
vate causes  generally.  But  the  great  and  leading  character  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  its  most  important  duties,  and  its  highest 
functions,  have  not  yet  been  alluded  to.  It  is  its  peculiar  rela- 
tion to  this  government  and  the  State  governments,  it  is  the 
power  which  it  rightfully  holds  and  exercises,  of  revising  the 
opinions  of  other  tribunals  on  constitutional  questions,  as  the 
great  practical  expounder  of  the  powers  of  the  government, 
vhich  attaches  to  this  tribunal  the  greatest  attention,  and  makes 
it  worthy  of  the  most  deliberate  consideration.  Duties  at  once 
so  important  and  so  delicate  impose  no  common  responsibility, 
and  require  no  common  talent  and  weight  of  character.  A  very 
small  court  seems  unfit  for  these  high  functions.  These  duties, 
though  essentially  judicial,  partake  something  of  a  politica 


THE  JUDICIARY.  163 

character.  The  judges  are  called  on  to  sit  in  judgment  on 
the  acts  of  independent  States ;  they  control  the  will  of  sover- 
eigns; they  are  liable  to  be  exposed,  therefore,  to  the  resent- 
ment of  wounded  sovereign  pride;  and  from  the  very  nature 
of  our  system,  they  are  sometimes  called  on,  also,  to  decide 
whether  Congress  has  not  exceeded  its  constitutional  limits.  Sir, 
there  exists  not  upon  the  earth,  and  there  never  did  exist,  a  judi- 
cial tribunal  clothed  with  powers  so  various,  and  so  important. 
I  doubt  the  safety  of  rendering  it  small  in  number.  My  own 
opinion  is,  that,  if  we  were  to  establish  Circuit  Courts,  and  to 
confine  their  judges  to  their  duties  on  the  bench,  their  number 
should  not  be  at  all  reduced ;  and  if,  by  some  moderate  addition 
to  it,  other  important  objects  may  well  be  answered,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  vote  for  such  addition.  In  a  government  like  ours,  en- 
tirely popular,  care  should  be  taken  in  every  part  of  the  system, 
not  only  to  do  right,  but  to  satisfy  the  community  that  right  is 
done.  The  opinions  of  mankind  naturally  attach  more  respect 
and  confidence  to  the  decisions  of  a  court  somewhat  numerous, 
than  to  those  of  one  composed  of  a  less  number.  And,  for 
myself,  I  acknowledge  my  fear,  that,  if  the  number  of  the  court 
were  reduced,  and  its  members  wholly  withdrawn  from  the  cir- 
cuits, it  might  become  an  object  of  unpleasant  jealousy  and 
great  distrust. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  suppose  I  need  not  assure  the  committee 
that,  if  I  saw  any  thing  in  this  bill  which  would  lessen  the  re- 
spectability or  shake  the  independence  of  the  Supreme  Court,  I 
should  be  the  last  man  to  favor  it.  I  look  upon  the  judicial  de- 
partment of  this  government  as  its  main  support.  I  am  per- 
suaded that  the  Union  could  not  exist  without  it.  I  shall  oppose 
whatever  I  think  calculated  to  disturb  the  fabric  of  government, 
to  unsettle  what  is  settled,  or  to  shake  the  faith  of  honest  men 
in  the  stability  of  the  laws,  or  the  purity  of  their  administration. 
If  any  gentleman  shall  show  rne  that  any  of  these  consequences 
is  like  to  follow  the  adoption  of  this  measure,  I  shall  hasten  to 
withdraw  from  it  my  support.  But  I  think  we  are  bound  to  do 
something ;  and  shall  be  most  happy  if  the  wisdom  of  the  House 
shall  suggest  a  course  more  free  from  difficulties  than  that  which 
is  now  proposed  to  it. 


164  THE  JUDICIARY. 


FURTHER  REMARKS  MADE  ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT,  ON  THE 
85TH  OF  JANUARY,  1826,  IN  REPLY  TO  THE  ARGUMENTS  USED 
AGAINST  THE  BILL,  AND  IN  FAVOR  OF  ITS  POSTPONEMENT. 

I  HAD  not  intended,  Sir,  to  avail  myself  of  the  indulgence 
which  is  generally  allowed,  under  circumstances  like  the  present 
of  making  a  reply.  But  the  House  has  been  invited  with  such 
earnestness  to  postpone  this  measure  to  another  year,  it  has 
been  pressed,  with  so  much  apparent  alarm,  to  give  no  further 
countenance  or  support  now  to  the  bill,  that  I  reluctantly  depart 
from  my  purpose,  and  ask  leave  to  offer  a  few  brief  remarks  upon 
the  leading  topics  of  the  discussion. 

This,  Sir,  must  be  allowed,  and  is,  on  all  hands  allowed,  to  be 
a  measure  of  great  and  general  interest.  It  respects  that  im- 
portant branch  of  government,  the  judiciary ;  and  something  of 
a  judicial  tone  of  discussion  is  not  unsuitable  to  the  occasion. 
We  cannot  treat  the  question  too  calmly,  or  too  dispassionately. 
For  myself,  I  feel  that  I  have  no  pride  of  opinion  to  gratify,  no 
^eagerness  of  debate  to  be  indulged,  no  competition  to  be  pur- 
sued. I  hope  I  may  say,  without  impropriety,  that  I  am  not 
insensible  to  the  responsibility  of  my  own  situation  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House,  and  a  member  of  the  committee.*  I  am 
aware  of  no  prejudice  which  should  draw  my  mind  from  the  sin- 
gle and  solicitous  contemplation  of  what  may  be  best ;  and  I 
have  listened  attentively,  through  the  whole  course  of  this  de- 
bate, not  with  the  feelings  of  one  who  is  meditating  the  means 
of  replying  to  objections,  or  escaping  from  their  force,  but  with 
an  unaffected  anxiety  to  give  every  argument  its  just  weight, 
and  with  a  perfect  readiness  to  abandon  this  measure,  at  any 
moment,  in  favor  of  any  other  which  should  appear  to  have 
solid  grounds  of  preference.  But  I  cannot  say  that  my  opinion 
is  altered.  The  measure  appears  to  my  mind  in  the  same  light 
as  when  it  was  first  presented  to  the  House.  I  then  saw  some 
inconveniences  attending  it,  and  admitted  them.  I  see  them 
now;  but  while  the  effect  of  this  discussion  on  my  own  mind 
has  not  been  to  do  away  entirely  the  sense  of  these  inconven- 
iences, it  has  not  been,  on  the  other  hand,  to  remove  the  greater 
objections  which  exist  to  any  other  plan.  I  remain  fully  con- 

*  Mr.  Webster  was  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  of 
RRpresentatives,  at  this  session  of  Congress. 


THE  JUDICIARY.  165 

vinced,  that  this  course  is,  on  the  whole,  that  which  is  freest  from 
difficulties.  However  plausible  other  systems  may  seem  in  their 
general  outline,  objections  arise,  and  thicken  as  we  go  into  their 
details.  It  is  not  now  at  all  certain  that  those  who  are  opposed 
to  this  bill  are  agreed  as  to  what  other  measure  should  be  pre- 
ferred. On  the  contrary,  it  is  certain  that  no  plan  unites  them 
all ;  and  they  act  together  only  on  the  ground  of  their  common 
dissatisfaction  with  the  proposed  bill.  That  system  which 
seems  most  favored  is  the  circuit  system,  as  provided  for  in 
the  Senate's  bill  of  1819.  But  as  to  that  there  is  not  an  entire 
agreement.  One  provision  in  that  bill  was,  to  reduce  the  num- 
ber of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  five.  This  was  a  part, 
too,  of  the  original  resolution  of  amendment  moved  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Virginia ;  *  but  it  was  afterwards  varied ;  probably 
to  meet  the  approbation  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,! 
and  others  who  preferred  to  keep  the  court  at  its  present  num- 
ber. But  other  gentlemen  who  are  in  opposition  to  this  bill 
have  still  recommended  a  reduction  of  that  number.  Now,  Sir, 
notwithstanding  such  reduction  was  one  object,  or  was  to  be 
one  effect,  of  the  law  of  1801,  was  contemplated,  also,  in  the 
Senate's  bill  of  1819,  and  has  been  again  recommended  by 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  and  other  gentlemen,  yet  I  can- 
not persuade  myself  that  any  ten  members  of  the  House,  upon 
mature  reflection,  would  now  be  in  favor  of  such  reduction.  It 
could  only  be  made  to  take  place  when  vacancies  should  occur 
on  the  bench,  by  death  or  resignation.  Of  the  seven  judges  of 
which  the  court  consists,  six  are  now  assigned  to  circuits  in  the 
Atlantic  States  ;  one  only  is  attached  to  the  Western  Districts. 
Now,  Sir,  if  we  were  to  provide  for  a  reduction,  it  might  hap- 
pen that  the  first  vacancy  would  be  in  the  situation  of  the  single 
Western  judge.  In  that  event,  no  appointment  could  be  made 
until  two  other  vacancies  should  occur,  which  might  be  several 
years.  1  suppose  that  no  man  would  think  it  just,  or  wise, 
or  prudent,  to  make  a  legal  provision,  in  consequence  of  which 
it  might  happen  that  there  should  be  no  Western  judge  at  all 
on  the  supreme  bench  for  several  years  to  come.  This  part  of 
tae  plan,  therefore,  was  wisely  abandoned  by  the  gentleman. 
The  court  cannot  be  reduced ;  and  the  question  is  only  betweeu 

*  Mr.  Powell.  f  Mr.  Buchanan. 


166  THE  JUDICIARY. 

seven  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  with  ten  circuit  judges,  and 
ten  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  with  no  circuit  judges. 

I  will  take  notice  here  of  another  suggestion  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  who  is  generally  so  sober-minded 
and  considerate  in  his  observations,  that  they  deserve  attention, 
from  respect  to  the  quarter  whence  they  proceed.  That  gentle- 
man recommends  that  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  should 
be  relieved  from  circuit  duties,  as  individuals,  but  proposes,  nev- 
ertheless, that  the  whole  court  should  become  migratory,  or  am- 
bulatory, and  that  its  sessions  should  be  holden,  now  in  New 
York  or  Boston,  now  in  Washington  or  Richmond,  and  now  in 
Kentucky  or  Ohio.  And  it  is  singular  enough,  that  this  arrange- 
ment is  recommended  in  the  same  speech  in  which  the  authori- 
ty of  a  late  President  is  cited,  to  prove  that  considerations  aris- 
ing from  the  usually  advanced  age  of  some  of  the  judges,  and 
their  reasonable  desire  for  repose,  ought  to  lead  us  to  relieve 
them  from  all  circuit  duties  whatever.  Truly,  Sir,  this  is  a 
strange  plan  of  relief.  Instead  of  holding  courts  in  his  own 
State,  and  perhaps  in  his  own  town,  and  visiting  a  neighboring 
State,  every  judge  on  this  plan  is  to  join  every  other  judge,  and 
the  whole  bench  to  make,  together,  a  sort  of  judicial  progress. 
They  are  to  visit  the  North,  and  the  South,  and  to  ascend  and 
descend  the  Alleghanies.  Sir,  it  is  impossible  to  talk  seriously 
against  such  a  proposition.  To  state  it,  is  to  refute  it.  Let  me 
merely  ask,  whether,  in  this  peregrination  of  the  court,  it  is  pro- 
posed that  they  take  all  their  records  of  pending  suits,  and  the 
whole  calendar  of  causes,  with  them.  If  so,  then  the  Kentucky 
client,  with  his  counsel,  is  to  follow  the  court  to  Boston ;  and 
the  Boston  client  to  pursue  it  back  to  Kentucky.  Or  is  it,  on 
the  contrary,  proposed  that  there  shall  be  grand  judicial  divis- 
ions in  the  country,  and  that  while  at  the  North,  for  example, 
none  but  Northern  appeals  shall  be  heard  ?  If  this  be  intended, 
then  I  ask,  How  often  could  the  court  sit  in  each  one  of  these 
divisions  ?  Certainly,  not  oftener  than  once  in  two  years  ;  prob- 
ably, not  oftener  than  once  in  three.  An  appeal,  therefore, 
might  be  brought  before  the  appellate  court  in  two  or  throe 
years  from  the  time  of  rendering  the  first  judgment;  and  sup- 
posing judgment  to  be  pronounced  in  the  appellate  court  at 
the  second  term,  it  would  be  decided  in  two  or  thiee  years  more. 
Bnt  it  is  not  necessary  to  examine  this  suggestion  further.  Sir, 


THE  JUDICIARY.  167 

every  thing  conspires  to  prove,  that,  with  respect  to  the  great 
duties  of  the  Supreme  Court,  they  must  be  discharged  at  one 
annual  session,  and  that  session  must  be  holden  at  the  seat  of 
government.  If  such  provision  be  made  as  that  the  business  of 
the  year  in  that  court  may  be  despatched  within  the  year,  rea- 
sonable promptitude  in  the  administration  of  justice  will  be  at- 
tained ;  and  such  provision,  I  believe,  is  practicable. 

Another  objection  advanced  by  the  member  from  Pennsylva- 
nia applies  as  well  to  the  system  as  it  now  exists,  as  to  that 
which  will  be  substituted  if  this  bill  shall  pass.  The  honorable 
member  thinks  that  the  appellate  court  and  the  court  from 
•which  the  appeal  comes  should,  in  all  cases,  be  kept  entirely  dis- 
tinct and  separate.  True  principle  requires,  in  his  judgment, 
that  the  circuit  judge  should  be  excluded  from  any  participa- 
tion in  the  revision  of  his  own  judgments.  I  believe,  Sir,  that, 
in  the  early  history  of  the  court,  the  practice  was  for  the  judge 
whose  opinion  was  under  revision  not  to  partake  in  the  delib- 
erations of  the  court.  This  practice,  however,  was  afterwards 
altered,  and  the  court  resolved  that  it  could  not  discharge  the 
judge  from  the  duty  of  assisting  in  the  decision  of  the  appeal. 
Whether  the  two  courts  ought  to  be  kept  so  absolutely  distinct 
and  separate  as  the  member  from  Pennsylvania  recommends,  is 
not  so  clear  a  question  that  persons  competent  to  form  an 
opinion  may  not  differ  upon  it.  On  the  one  hand,  it  may  very 
well  be  said,  that,  if  the  judgment  appealed  from  has  been  ren- 
dered by  one  of  the  judges  of  the  appellate  court,  courtesy, 
kindness,  or  sympathy  may  inspire  some  disposition  in  the 
members  of  the  same  bench  to  affirm  that  judgment ;  and  that 
the  general  habit  of  the  court  may  thus  become  unfriendly  to  a 
free  and  unbiased  revision.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  con- 
tended, that,  if  there  be  no  medium  of  communication  between 
the  court  of  the  first  instance,  and  the  court  of  appellate  juris- 
diction, there  may  be  danger  that  the  reasons  of  the  first  may 
not  be  always  well  understood,  and  its  judgments  consequently 
liable,  sometimes,  to  be  erroneously  reversed.  It  certainly  is  not 
true,  that  the  chance  of  justice,  in  an  appellate  court,  is  always 
precisely  equal  to  the  chance  of  reversing  the  judgment  below ; 
although  it  is  necessary  for  the  peace  of  society  and  the  termi- 
nation of  litigation  to  take  it  for  granted,  as  a  general  rule,  that 
what  is  decided  by  the  ultimate  tribunal  is  decided  rightly. 


168  THE  JUDICIARY. 

To  guard  against  too  great  a  tendency  to  reversals  in  appel 
late  courts,  it  has  often  been  thought  expedient  to  furnish  a 
good  opportunity  at  least  of  setting-  forth  the  grounds  and  rea- 
sons of  the  original  judgment.  Thus,  in  the  British  House  of 
Lords  a  judgment  of  the  King's  Bench  is  not  ordinarily  reversed 
until  the  judges  have  been  called  in,  and  the  reason  of  their 
several  opinions  stated  by  themselves.  Thus,  too,  in  the  Court 
.f  Errors  of  New  York,  the  Chancellor  and  the  judges  are 
Members  of  the  court;  and,  although  they  do  not  vote  upon  the 
revision  of  then*  own  judgments  *or  decrees,  they  are  expected  to 
assign  and  explain  the  reasons  of  the  original  judgment.  In 
the  modern  practice  of  the  courts  of  common  law,  causes  are 
constantly  and  daily  revised  on  motions  for  new  trials  founded 
on  the  supposed  misdirection  of  the  judge  in  matter  of  law.  In 
these  cases  the  judge  himself  is  a  component  member  of  the 
court,  and  constantly  takes  part  in  its  proceedings.  It  certainly 
may  happen  in  such  cases  that  some  bias  of  preconceived  opin- 
ion may  influence  the  individual  judge,  or  some  undue  portiorr 
of  respect  for  the  judgment  already  pronounced  may  uncon- 
sciously mingle  itself  with  the  judgments  of  others.  But  the 
universality  of  the  practice  sufficiently  shows  that  no  great  prac- 
tical evil  is  experienced  from  this  cause. 

It  has  been  said  in  England,  that  the  practice  of  revising  the 
opinions  of  judges  by  motions  for  new  trial,  instead  of  filing  bills 
of  exception  and  suing  out  writs  of  error,  has  greatly  diminished 
the  practical  extent  of  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  House  of 
Lords.  This  shows  that  suitors  are  not  advised  that  they  have 
no  hope  to  prevail  against  the  first  opinions  of  individual  judges, 
or  the  sympathy  of  their  brethren.  Indeed,  Sir,  judges  of  the 
highest  rank  of  intellect  have  always  been  distinguished  for  the 
candor  with  which  they  reconsider  their  own  judgments.  A 
man  who  should  commend  himself  for  never  having  altered  his 
opinion  might  be  praised  for  firmness  of  purpose;  but  men 
would  think  of  him,  either  that  he  was  a  good  deal  above  all 
otl  er  mortals,  or  somewhat  below  the  most  enlightened  of  them. 
He  who  is  not  wise  enough  to  be  always  right,  should  be  wise 
enough  to  change  his  opinion  when  he  finds  it  wrong.  The 
consistency  of  a  truly  great  man  is  proved  by  his  uniform  at- 
tachment to  truth  and  principle,  and  his  devotion  to  the  better 
reason ;  not  by  obstinate  attachment  to  first-formed  notions. 


THE  JUDICIARY.  169 

Whoever  has  not  candor  enough,  for  good  cause,  to  change  his 
own  opinions,  is  not  safe  authority  to  change  the  opinions  of 
other  men.  But  at  least,  Sir,  the  member  from  Pennsylvania 
will  admit,  that,  if  an  evil  in  this  respect  exist  under  the  present 
law,  this  bill  will  afford  some  mitigation  of  that  evil.  By  aug- 
menting the  number  of  the  judges,  it  diminishes  the  influence 
of  the  individual  whose  judgment  may  be  under  revision ;  and 
so  far,  I  hope,  the  honorable  member  may  himself  think  the 
measure  productive  of  good. 

But,  Sir,  before  we  postpone  to  another  year  the  consideration 
of  this  bill,  I  beg  again  to  remind  the  House  that  the  measure  is 
not  new.  It  is  not  new  in  its  general  character ;  it  is  not  en- 
tirely new  in  its  particular  provisions.  The  necessity  of  some 
reform  in  the  judicial  establishment  of  the  country  has  been  pre- 
sented to  every  Congress,  and  every  session  of  Congress,  since 
the  peace  of  1815.  What  has  been  recommended,  at  differ- 
ent times,  has  been  already  frequently  stated.  It  is  enough, 
now,  to  say,  that  the  measure  of  extending  the  system  by  in- 
creasing the  number  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  was 
presented  to  the  House,  among  other  measures,  in  1823,  by  the 
Judiciary  Committee ;  and  that  so  late  as  the  last  session  it  re- 
ceived a  distinct  expression  of  approbation  in  the  other  branch 
of  the  legislature.  Gentlemen  have  referred  to  the  bill  intro- 
duced into  this  House  two  years  ago.  That  bill  had  my  appro- 
bation ;  I  so  declared  at  the  commencement  of  this  debate.  It 
proposed  to  effect  the  object  of  retaining  the  judges  upon  their 
circuits  without  increasing  their  number.  But  it  was  complex. 
It  was  thought  to  be  unequal,  and  it  was  unsatisfactory.  There 
appeared  no  disposition  in  the  House  to  adopt  it ;  and  when  the 
same  measure  in  substance  was  afterwards  proposed  in  the  other 
branch  of  the  legislature,  it  received  the  approbation  of  no 
more  than  a  half  dozen  voices.  This  led  me  to  make  a  remark, 
at  the  opening  of  the  debate,  which  I  have  already  repeated, 
that,  in  my  opinion,  we  are  brought  to  the  narrow  ground  of  de- 
ciding between  the  system  of  Circuit  Courts  and  the  provisions 
of  this  bill.  Shall  we  keep  the  judges  upon  the  circuits  and 
augment  their  member,  or  shall  we  relieve  them  from  circuit  du- 
ties and  appoint  special  circuit  judges  in  their  places  ?  This,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  is  the  only  practical  question  remaining  for  our 
decision. 

VOL.  in.  15 


170  THE  JUDICIARY. 

I  do  not  intend,  Sir,  to  go  again  into  the  general  question  of 
continuing  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  discharge 
of  circuit  duties.  My  opinion  has  been  already  expressed,  and  I 
have  heard  nothing  to  alter  it.  The  honorable  gentleman  from 
Virginia  does  me  more  than  justice  in  explaining  any  expression 
of  his  own  which  might  refer  this  opinion  to  a  recent  origin,  or 
to  any  new  circumstances.  I  confess,  Sir,  that  four-and-twenty 
years  ago,  when  this  matter  was  discussed  in  Congress,  my  opin- 
ion, as  far  as  I  can  be  supposed  to  have  had  any  opinion  then 
on  such  subjects,  inclined  to  the  argument  that  recommended 
the  separation  of  the  judges  from  the  circuits.  But,  if  I  may  be 
pardoned  for  referring  to  any  thing  so  little  worthy  the  regard  of 
the  House  as  my  own  experience,  I  will  say  that  that  experience 
early  led  me  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  the  first  impression,  and 
that  I  became  satisfied  that  it  was  desirable  in  itself  that  the 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  should  remain  in  the  active  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  of  the  circuits.  I  have  acted  in  conformity 
to  this  sentiment  so  often  as  this  subject  has  been  before  Con- 
gress in  the  short  periods  that  I  have  been  a  member.  I  still  feel 
the  same  conviction ;  and  though  I  shall  certainly  yield  the 
point,  rather  than  that  no  provision  for  the  existing  exigency 
should  be  made,  yet  I  should  feel  no  inconsiderable  pain  in  sub- 
mitting to  such  necessity.  I  do  not  doubt,  indeed,  Sir,  that,  if 
the  judges  were  separated  from  circuit  duties,  we  should  go  on 
very  well  for  some  years  to  come.  But  looking  to  it  as  a  per- 
manent system,  I  view  it  with  distrust  and  anxiety. 

My  reasons  are  already  before  the  House.  I  am  not  about  to 
repeat  them.  I  beg  to  take  this  occasion,  however,  to  correct 
one  or  two  misapprehensions  of  my  meaning  into  which  gentle- 
men have  fallen.  I  did  not  say,  Sir,  that  I  wished  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Courts  to  go  upon  the  circuits,  to  the  end  that  they 
might  see  in  the  country  the  impression  which  their  opinions 
made  upon  the  public  sentiment.  Nothing  like  it.  What  I  did 
say  was,  that  it  was  useful  that  the  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court 
should  be  able  to  perceive  the  application  and  bearing  of  the 
opinions  of  that  court  upon  the  variety  of  causes  coming  before 
him  at  the  circuit.  And  is  not  this  useful  ?  Is  it  not  probable 
that  the  judge  will  lay  down  a  general  rule  with  the  greatest 
wisdom  and  precision,  who  comprehends  in  his  view  the  greatest 
number  of  instances  to  which  that  rule  is  to  be  applied  ?  As  far 


THE  JUDICIARY.  171 

as  I  can  now  recall  the  train  of  my  own  ideas,  the  expression 
was  suggested  by  a  reflection  upon  the  laws  of  the  Western 
States,  respecting  title  to  land.  We  hear  often  in  this  House 
of  "judicial  legislation."  If  any  such  thing  exist  in  this  coun- 
try, an  instance  of  it  doubtless  is  to  be  found  in  the  land  laws 
of  some  of  the  Western  States.  In  Kentucky,  for  example, 
titles  to  the  soil  appear  to  depend,  to  a  very  great  extent,  upon 
a  series  of  judicial  decisions,  growing  out  of  an  act  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  Virginia  passed  in  1779,  for  the  sale  and  disposition  of 
her  public  domain.  The  legislative  provision  was  very  short 
and  general ;  and  as  rights  were  immediately  acquired  under  it, 
the  want  of  legislative  detail  could  only  be  supplied  by  judicial 
construction  and  determination.  Hence  a  system  has  grown 
'up,  which  is  complex,  artificial,  and  argumentative.  I  do  not 
impute  blame  to  the  courts ;  they  had  no  option  but  to  decide 
cases  as  they  arose,  upon  the  best  reasons.  And  although  I  am 
a  very  incompetent  judge  in  the  case,  yet  as  far  as  I  am  in- 
formed, it  appears  to  me  that  the  courts,  both  of  the  State  and 
of  the  United  States,  have  applied  just  principles  to  the  state  of 
things  which  they  found  existing.  But,  Sir,  as  a  rule  laid  down 
at  Washington  in  one  of  these  cases  may  be  expected  to  affect 
five  hundred  others,  is  it  not  obvious  that  a  judge,  bred  to  this 
peculiar  system  of  law,  and  having  also  many  of  these  cases  in 
judgment  before  him  in  his  own  circuit,  is  better  enabled  to 
state,  to  limit,  and  to  modify  the  general  rule,  than  another 
judge,  though  of  equal  talents,  who  should  be  a  stranger  to 
the  decisions  of  the  State  tribunals,  a  stranger  to  the  opinions 
and  practice  of  the  profession,  and  a  stranger  to  all  cases  except 
the  single  one  before  him  for  judgment  ? 

The  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania  asks,  Sir,  whether 
a  statute  of  Vermont  cannot  be  as  well  understood  at  Wash- 
ington, as  at  Windsor  or  Rutland.  WThy,  Sir,  put  in  that  shape, 
the  question  has  very  little  meaning.  But  if  the  gentleman  in- 
tends to  ask,  whether  a  judge  who  has  been  for  years  in  the 
constant  discharge  of  the  duties  incumbent  upon  him  as  the 
head  of  the  Circuit  Court  in  Vermont,  and  who,  therefore,  has 
had  the  statutes  of  that  State  frequently  before  him,  has  learned 
their  interpretation  by  the  State  judicatures,  and  their  connec- 
tion with  other  laws,  local  or  general, — if  the  question  be,  wheth- 
er such  a  judge  is  not  probably  more  competent  to  understand 


172  THE  JUDICIARY. 

that  statute  than  another,  who,  with  no  knowledge  of  its  local 
interpretation  or  local  application,  shall  look  at  its  letter  for  the 
first  time  in  the  hall  of  the  Supreme  Court,  —  if  this  be  the 
question,  Sir,  which  the  honorable  gentleman  means  to  pro- 
pound, I  cheerfully  refer  him  to  the  judgment  of  this  House, 
and  to  his  own  good  understanding,  for  an  answer.  Sir,  we 
have  heard  a  tone  of  observation  upon  this  subject  which  quite 
surprises  me.  It  seems  to  imply  that  one  intelligent  man  is  as 
fit  to  be  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  another.  The  per- 
ception of  the  true  rule,  and  its  rightful  application,  whether  of 
local  or  general  lav/,  are  supposed  to  be  entirely  easy,  because 
there  are  many  volumes  of  statutes  and  of  decisions.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  it  seems,  that  a  Supreme  Court,  however 
constituted,  would  readily  understand,  in  the  instance  men- 
tioned, the  law  of  Vermont,  because  the  statutes  of  Vermont 
are  accessible.  Nor  need  Louisiana  fear  that  her  peculiar  code 
will  not  be  thoroughly  and  practically  known,  inasmuch  as  a 
printed  copy  will  be  found  in  the  public  libraries. 

Sir,  I  allude  to  such  arguments,  certainly  not  for  the  purpose 
of  undertaking  a  refutation  of  them,  but  only  to  express  my  re- 
gret that  they  should  have  found  place  in  this  discussion.  1 
have  not  contended,  Sir,  for  any  thing  like  judicial  representa- 
tion. I  care  not  in  what  terms  of  reproach  such  an  idea  be 
spoken  of.  It  is  none  of  mine.  What  I  said  was,  and  I  still 
say  it,  that,  with  so  many  States,  having  various  and  different 
systems,  with  such  a  variety  of  local  laws  and  usages  and  prac- 
tices, it  is  highly  important  that  the  Supreme  Court  should  be 
so  constituted  as  to  allow  a  fair  prospect,  in  every  case,  that 
these  laws  and  usages  should  be  known ;  and  that  I  know  noth- 
ing so  naturally  conducive  to  this  end,  as  the  knowledge  and 
experience  obtained  by  the  judges  on  the  circuits.  Let  me  ask, 
Sir,  the  members  from  New  England,  if  they  have  ever  found 
any  man  this  side  of  the  North  River  who  thoroughly  under- 
stood our  practice  of  special  attachment,  our  process  of  garnish- 
ment, or  trustee  process,  or  our  mode  of  extending  execution 
upon  land  ?  And  let  me  ask,  at  the  same  time,  whether  there 
be  an  individual  of  the  profession,  between  this  place  and  Maine 
who  is,  at  this  moment,  competent  to  the  decision  of  questions 
arising  under  the  peculiar  system  of  land  titles  of  Kentucky  oir 
Tennessee?  If  there  be  such  a  gentleman,  I  confess  I  have  not 
the  honor  of  his  acquaintance. 


THE  JUDICIARY  173 

On  the  general  question  of  the  utility  of  constant  occupation 
in  perfecting  the  character  of  a  judge,  I  do  not  mean  now  to 
enlarge.  I  am  aware  that  men  will  differ  on  that  subject,  ac- 
cording to  their  different  means  or  different  habits  of  observa- 
tion. To  me  it  seems  as  clear  as  any  moral  proposition  what- 
ever. And  I  would  ask  the  honorable  member  from  Rhode 
Island,  since  he  has  referred  to  the  judge  of  the  first  circuit,  and 
has  spoken  of  him  in  terms  of  respect  not  undeserved,  whether 
he  supposes  that  that  member  of  the  court,  if,  fifteen  years  ago, 
on  receiving  his  commission,  he  had  removed  to  this  city,  and 
had  remained  here  ever  since,  with  no  other  connection  with  his 
profession  than  an  annual  session  of  six  weeks  in  the  Supreme 
Court,  would  have  been  the  judge  he  now  is  ?  Sir,  if  this  ques- 
tion were  proposed  to  that  distinguished  person  himself,  and  if 
he  could  overcome  the  reluctance  which  he  would  naturally  feel 
to  speak  at  all  of  his  own  judicial  qualities,  I  am  extremely  mis- 
taken if  he  would  not  refer  to  his  connection  with  the  Circuit 
Court,  and  the  frequency  and  variety  of  his  labors  there,  as  effi- 
cient causes  in  the  production  of  that  eminent  degree  of  ability 
with  which  he  now  discharges  the  duties  of  his  station. 

There  is  not,  Sir,  an  entire  revolution  wrought  in  the  mind  of 
a  professional  man,  by  appointing  him  a  judge.  He  is  still  a 
lawyer;  and  if  he  have  but  little  to  do  as  a  judge,  he  is,  in 
effect,  a  lawyer  out  of  practice.  And  how  is  it,  Sir,  with  law- 
yers who  are  not  judges,  and  are  yet  out  of  practice  ?  Let  the 
opinion  and  the  common  practice  of  mankind  decide  this.  If 
you  require  professional  assistance  in  whatever  relates  to  your 
reputation,  your  property,  or  your  family,  do  you  go  to  him  who 
is  retired  from  the  bar,  and  who  has  uninterrupted  leisure  to 
pursue  his  readings  and  reflections ;  or  do  you  address  yourself 
to  him,  on  the  contrary,  who  is  in  the  midst  of  affairs,  busy 
every  day,  and  every  hour  in  the  day,  with  professional  pursuits  ? 
But  I  will  not  follow  this  topic  farther,  nor  dwell  on  this  part  of 
the  case. 

I  have  already  said,  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  present  number 
of  the  court  is  more  convenient  than  a  larger  number,  for  the 
hearing  of  a  certain  class  of  causes.  This  opinion  I  do  not 
retract ;  for  I  believe  it  to  be  correct.  But  the  question  is, 
whether  this  inconvenience  be  not  more  than  balanced  by  other 
advantages.  I  think  it  is. 
15* 


174  THE  JUDICIARY. 

It  has  been  again  and  again  urged,  that  this  bill  makes  no 
provision  for  clearing  off  the  term  business  of  the  Supreme 
Court;  and  strange  mistakes,  as  it  appears  to  me,  are  commit- 
ted, as  to  the  amount  of  arrears  in  that  court.  I  believe  that 
the  bill  intended  to  remedy  that  evil  will  remedy  it.  I  believe 
there  is  time  enough  for  the  court  to  go  through  its  lists  of 
causes  here,  without  interfering  with  the  sessions  of  the  Circuit 
Courts;  and,  notwithstanding  the  mathematical  calculations  by 
which  it  has  been  proved  that  the  proposed  addition  to  the 
length  of  the  term  would  enable  the  court  to  decide  precisely 
nine  additional  causes,  and  no  more,  yet  I  have  authority  to  say, 
that  those  who  have  the  best  means  of  knowing  were  of  opin- 
ion, two  years  ago,  that  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  term 
would  enable  the  court,  in  two  years,  to  go  through  all  the , 
causes  before  it  ready  for  hearing. 

It  has  been  said,  Sir,  that  this  measure  will  injure  the  char- 
acter of  the  Supreme  Court ;  because,  as  we  increase  numbers, 
we  lessen  responsibility  in  the  same  proportion.  Doubtless,  as 
a  general  proposition,  there  is  great  truth  in  this  remark.  A 
court  so  numerous  as  to  become  a  popular  body  would  be  unfit 
for  the  exercise  of  judicial  functions.  This  is  certain.  But  then 
this  general  truth,  although  admitted,  does  not  enable  us  to  fix 
with  precision  the  point  at  which  this  evil  either  begins  to  be 
felt  at  all,  or  to  become  considerable ;  still  less,  where  it  is  se- 
rious or  intolerable.  If  seven  be  quite  few  enough,  it  may  not 
be  easy  to  show  that  ten  must  necessarily  be  a  great  deal  too 
many.  But  there  is  another  view  of  the  case,  connected  with 
what  I  have  said  heretofore  in  this  discussion,  and  which  fur- 
nishes, in  my  mind,  a  complete  answer  to  this  part  of  the  argu- 
ment ;  and  that  is,  that  a  judge  who  has  various  important  indi- 
vidual duties  to  perform  in  the  Circuit  Court,  and  who  sits  in 
the  appellate  court  with  nine  others,  acts,  on  the  whole,  in  a 
more  conspicuous  character,  and  under  the  pressure  of  more 
immediate  and  weighty  responsibility,  than  if  he  performed  no 
individual  circuit  duty,  and  sat  on  the  appellate  bench  with  six 
others  only. 

But  again,  it  has  been  argued,  that  to  increase  the  number  of 
the  Supreme  Court  is  dangerous ;  because,  with  such  a  prece- 
dent, Congress  may  hereafter  effect  any  purpose  of  its  own,  in 
regard  to  judicial  decisions,  by  changing  essentially  the  whole 


THE  JUDICIARY.  175 

constitution  of  the  court,  and  overthrowing  its  settled  decis- 
ions, by  augmenting  the  number  of  judges.  Whenever  Con- 
gress, it  is  said,  may  dislike  the  constitutional  opinions  and 
decisions  of  the  court,  it  may  mould  it  to  its  own  views,  upon 
the  authority  of  the  present  example.  But  these  abuses  of 
power  are  not  to  be  anticipated  or  supposed ;  and  therefore 
no  argument  results  from  them. 

If  we  were  to  be  allowed  to  imagine  that  the  legislature  would 
act  in  entire  disregard  of  its  duty,  there  are  ways  enough,  cer- 
tainly, beside  that  supposed,  in  which  it  might  destroy  the  judi- 
ciary, as  well  as  any  other  branch  of  the  government.  The  ju- 
diciary power  is  conferred,  and  the  Supreme  Court  established, 
by  the  Constitution ;  but  then  legislative  acts  are  necessary  to 
confer  jurisdiction  on  inferior  courts,  and  to  regulate  proceedings 
in  all  courts.  If  Congress  should  neglect  the  duty  of  passing 
such  laws,  the  judicial  power  could  not  be  efficiently  exercised. 
If,  for  example,  Congress  were  to  repeal  the  twenty-fifth  section 
of  the  judicial  act  of  1789,  and  make  no  substitute,  there  would 
be  no  mode  by  which  the  decisions  of  State  tribunals,  on  ques- 
tions arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States,  could  be  revised  in  the  Supreme  Court.  Or  if  they 
were  to  repeal  the  eleventh  section  of  that  act,  the  power  of  try- 
ing causes  between  citizens  of  different  States,  in  the  tribunals 
of  this  government,  could  not  be  exercised.  All  other  branches 
of  the  government  depend,  in  like  manner,  for  their  continuance 
in  life  and  being,  and  for  the  proper  exercise  of  their  powers,  on 
the  presumption  that  the  legislature  will  discharge  its  constitu- 
tional duties.  If  it  were  possible  to  adopt  the  opposite  suppo- 
sition, doubtless  there  are  modes  enough  to  which  we  may  look, 
to  see  the  subversion  both  of  the  courts  and  the  whole  Consti- 
tution. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  not  detain  you  by  further  reply  to  the  va- 
rious objections  which  have  been  made  to  this  bill.  What  has 
occurred  to  me  as  most  important,  I  have  noticed  either  now  or 
heretofore ;  and  I  refer  the  whole  to  the  dispassionate  judgment 
of  the  House.  Allow  me,  however,  Sir,  before  I  sit  down,  to 
disavow,  on  my  own  behalf  and  on  behalf  of  the  committee, 
all  connection  between  this  measure  and  any  opinions  or  decis- 
ions, given  or  expected,  in  any  causes,  or  classes  of  causes,  by 
the  Supreme  Court.  Of  the  merits  of  the  case  of  which  early 


L76  THE  JUDICIARY. 

mention  was  made  in  the  debate,  I  know  nothing.  I  presume 
it  was  rightly  decided,  because  it  was  decided  by  sworn  judges, 
composing  a  tribunal  in  which  the  Constitution  and  the  laws 
have  lodged  the  power  of  ultimate  judgment.  It  would  be  un- 
worthy, indeed,  of  the  magnitude  of  this  occasion,  to  bend  our 
course  a  hair's  breadth  on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  either  to 
layer  or  to  oppose  what  we  might  like,  or  dislike,  in  regard  to 
particular  questions.  Surely  we  are  not  fit  for  this  great  work, 
if  motives  of  that  sort  can  possibly  come  near  us.  I  have 
forborne,  throughout  this  discussion,  all  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  manner  in  which  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Court 
have  heretofore  discharged,  and  still  discharge,  the  responsible 
duties  of  their  station.  I  should  feel  restraint  and  embarrass- 
ment, were  I  to  make  the  attempt  to  express  my  sentiments  on 
that  point.  Professional  habits  and  pursuits  connect  me  with 
the  court,  and  I  feel  that  it  is  not  proper  that  I  should  speak 
here  of  the  personal  qualities  of  its  members,  either  generally  or 
individually.  They  shall  not  suffer,  at  least,  from  any  ill-timed 
or  clumsy  eulogy  of  mine.  I  could  not,  if  I  would,  make  them 
better  known  than  they  are  to  their  country ;  nor  could  I  either 
strengthen  or  shake  the  foundation  of  character  and  talent  upon 
which  they  stand. 

But  of  the  judicial  branch  of  the  government,  and  of  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  the  head  of  that  branch,  I  beg 
to  say  that  no  man  can  regard  it  with  more  respect  and  attach- 
ment than  myself.  It  may  have  friends  more  able,  it  has  none 
more  sincere.  No  conviction  is  deeper  in  my  mind,  than  that 
the  maintenance  of  the  judicial  power  is  essential  and  indis- 
pensable to  the  very  being  of  this  government.  The  Constitu- 
tion without  it  would  be  no  constitution ;  the  government,  no 
government.  I  am  deeply  sensible,  too,  and,  as  I  think,  every 
man  must  be  whose  eyes  have  been  open  to  what  has  passed 
around  him  for  the  last  twenty  years,  that  the  judicial  power  is 
the  protecting  power  of  the  whole  government.  Its  position  is 
upon  the  outer  wall.  From  the  very  nature  of  things  and  the 
frame  of  the  Constitution,  it  forms  the  point  at  which  our  differ- 
ent systems  of  government  meet  in  collision,  when  collision  un- 
happily exists.  By  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  case,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Supreme  Court  become  judges  of  the  extent  of 
constitutional  powers.  They  are,  if  I  may  so  call  them,  the 


THE  JUDICIARY.  177 

great  arbitrators  between  contending  sovereignties.  Every  man 
is  able  to  see  how  delicate  and  how  critical  must  be  the  exer- 
cise of  such  powers  in  free  and  popular  governments.  Suspicion 
and  jealousy  are  easily  excited,  under  such  circumstances,  against 
a  body,  necessarily  few  in  number,  and  possessing  by  the  Con- 
stitution a  permanent  tenure  of  office.  While  public  men  in 
more  popular  parts  of  the  government  may  escape  without  re- 
buke, notwithstanding  they  may  sometimes  act  upon  opinions 
which  are  not  acceptable,  that  impunity  is  not  to  be  expected  in 
behalf  of  judicial  tribunals.  It  cannot  but  have  attracted  obser- 
vation, that,  in  the  history  of  our  government,  the  courts  have 
not  been  able  to  avoid  severe,  and  sometimes  angry  complaint, 
for  giving  their  sanction  to  those  public  measures  which  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people  had  adopted  without  exciting  particular 
disquietude.  Members  of  this  and  the  other  house  of  Congress, 
acting  voluntarily,  and  in  the  exercise  of  their  general  discretion, 
have  enacted  laws  without  incurring  an  uncommon  degree  of 
dislike  or  resentment ;  and  yet,  when  those  very  laws  have  been 
brought  before  the  court,  and  the  question  of  their  validity  has 
been  distinctly  raised,  and  is  necessarily  to  be  determined,  the 
judges  affirming  the  constitutional  validity  of  such  acts,  although 
the  occasion  was  forced  upon  them,  and  they  were  absolutely 
bound  to  express  the  one  opinion  or  the  other,  have,  neverthe- 
less, not  escaped  a  severity  of  reproach  bordering  upon  the  very 
verge  of  denunciation.  This  experience,  while  it  teaches  us  the 
dangers  which  environ  this  department,  instructs  us  most  per- 
suasively in  its  importance.  For  its  own  security,  and  the  secu- 
rity of  the  other  branches  of  the  government,  it  requires  such  an 
extraordinary  union  of  discretion  and  firmness,  of  ability  and 
moderation,  that  nothing  in  the  country  is  too  distinguished  for 
sober  "sense  or  too  gifted  with  powerful  talent,  te  fill  the  situa- 
tions belonging  to  it. 


THE   PANAMA   MISSION.* 


THE  following  resolution  being  under  consideration,  in  committee  of 
the  whole  House  upon  the  state  of  the  Union,  viz. :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  House  it  is  expedient  to  ap- 
propriate the  funds  necessary  to  enable  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  send  ministers  to  the  Congress  of  Panama  "  ;  — 

Mr.  McLane  of  Delaware  submitted  the  following  amendment  there- 
to, viz. :  — 

"  It  being  understood  as  the  opinion  of  this  House,  that,  as  it  has  al- 
ways been  the  settled  policy  of  this  government,  in  extending  our  com- 
mercial relations  with  foreign  nations,  to  have  with  them  as  little  politi- 
cal connection  as  possible,  to  preserve  peace,  commerce,  and  friendship 
with  all  nations,  and  to  form  entangling  alliances  with  none  ;  the  minis- 
ters who  may  be  sent  shall  attend  at  the  said  Congress  in  a  diplomatic 
character  merely,  and  ought  not  to  be  authorized  to  discuss,  consider, 
or  consult,  upon  any  proposition  of  alliance,  offensive  or  defensive, 
between  this  country  and  any  of  the  Spanish  American  governments, 
or  any  stipulation,  compact,  or  declaration,  binding  the  United  States  in 
any  way,  or  to  any  extent,  to  resist  interference  from  abroad  with  the 
domestic  concerns  of  the  aforesaid  governments  ;  or  any  measure  which 
shall  commit  the  present  or  future  neutral  rights  or  duties  "of  these 
United  States,  either  as  may  regard  European  nations,  or  between  the 
several  states  of  Mexico  and  South  America ;  leaving  the  United  States 
free  to  adopt,  in  any  event  which  may  happen,  affecting  the  relations 
of  the  South  American  governments  with  each  other,  or  with  foreign 
nations,  such  measures  as  the  friendly  disposition  cherished  by  the 
American  people  towards  the  people  of  those  states,  and  the  honor  and 
interest  of  this  nation,  may  require  "  ;  — 

To  which  Mr.  Rives  of  Virginia  proposed  to  add,  after  the  words 
"  aforesaid  governments,"  the  following  :  — 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
on  the  14th  of  April,  1826. 


THE   PANAMA  MISSION.  179 

"  Or  any  compact  or  engagement  by  which  the  United  States  shall  be 
pledged  to  the  Spanish  American  states,  to  maintain,  by  force,  the  prin- 
ciple that  no  part  of  the  American  continent  is  henceforward  subject  to 
colonization  by  any  European  power." 

The  preceding  motions  to  amend  being  under  consideration,  Mr.  Web- 
ster addressed  the  committee  as  follows. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  am  not  ambitious  of  amplifying  this  dis- 
cussion. On  the  contrary,  it  is  my  anxious  wish  to  confine  the 
debate,  so  far  as  I  partake  in  it,  to  the  real  and  material  ques- 
tions before  us. 

Our  judgment  of  things  is  liable,  doubtless,  to  be  influenced  by 
our  opinions  of  men.  It  would  be  affectation  in  me,  or  in  any 
one,  to  claim  an  exemption  from  this  possibility  of  bias.  I  can 
say,  however,  that  it  has  been  my  sincere  purpose  to  consider 
and  discuss  the  present  subject  with  the  single  view  of  finding 
out  what  duty  it  devolves  upon  me,  as  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives.  If  any  thing  has  diverted  me  from  that  sole 
aim,  it  has  been  against  my  intention. 

I  think,  Sir,  that  there  are  two  questions,  and  two  only,  for  our 
decision.  The  first  is,  whether  the  House  of  Representatives 
will  assume  the  responsibility  of  withholding  the  ordinary  ap- 
propriation for  carrying  into  effect  an  executive  measure,  which 
the  executive  department  has  constitutionally  instituted.  The 
second,  whether,  if  it  will  not  withhold  the  appropriation,  ii 
will  yet  take  the  responsibility  of  interposing,  with  its  own 
opinions,  directions,  or  instructions,  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
this  particular  executive  measure  shall  be  conducted. 

I  am,  certainly,  in  the  negative,  on  both  these  questions.  I 
am  neither  willing  to  refuse  the  appropriation,  nor  am  I  will- 
ing to  limit  or  restrain  the  discretion  of  the  executive,  before- 
hand, as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  shall  perform  its  own  ap- 
propriate constitutional  duties.  And,  Sir,  those  of  us  who  hold 
these  opinions  have  the  advantage  of  being  on  the  commoh 
highway  of  our  national  politics.  We  propose  nothing  new; 
we  suggest  no  change ;  we  adhere  to  the  uniform  practice  of 
the  government,  as  I  understand  it,  from  its  origin.  It  is  for 
those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  are  in  favor  of  either,  or  both,  of 
the  propositions,  to  show  us  the  cogent  reasons  which  recom- 
merid  their  adoption.  It.  is  their  duty  to  satisfy  the  House  and 


180  THE    PANAMA    MISSION. 

the  country  that  there  is  something  in  the  present  occasion  which 
calls  for  such  an  extraordinary  and  unprecedented  interference. 

The  President  and  Senate  have  instituted  a  public  mission, 
for  the  purpose  of  treating  with  foreign  states.  The  Constitu- 
tion gives  to  the  President  the  power  of  appointing,  with  the 
consent  of  the  Senate,  ambassadors  and  other  public  ministers. 
Such  appointment  is,  therefore,  a  clear  and  unquestionable  ex- 
ercise of  executive  power.  It  is,  indeed,  less  connected  with 
the  appropriate  duties  of  this  House,  than  almost  any  other  ex 
ecutive  act ;  because  the  office  of  a  public  minister  is  not  cre- 
ated by  any  statute  or  law  of  our  own  government.  It  exists 
under  the  law  of  nations,  and  is  recognized  as  existing  by  our 
Constitution.  The  acts  of  Congress,  indeed,  limit  the  salaries 
of  public  ministers ;  but  they  do  no  more.  Every  thing  else  in 
regard  to  the  appointment  of  public  ministers,  —  their  numbers, 
the  time  of  their  appointment,  and  the  negotiations  contemplated 
in  such  appointments,  —  is  matter  for  executive  discretion.  Ev- 
ery new  appointment  to  supply  vacancies  in  existing  missions 
is  under  the  same  authority.  There  are,  indeed,  what  we  com- 
monly term  standing  missions,  so  known  in  the  practice  of  the 
government,  but  they  are  not  made  permanent  by  any  law.  All 
missions  rest  on  the  same  ground.  Now  the  question  is,  wheth- 
er, the  President  and  Senate  having  created  this  mission,  or,  in 
other  words,  having  appointed  the  ministers,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  undoubted  constitutional  power,  this  House  will  take  upon 
itself  the  responsibility  of  defeating  its  objects,  and  rendering 
this  exercise  of  executive  power  void  ? 

By  voting  the  salaries  in  the  ordinary  way,  we  assume,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  no  responsibility  whatever.  We  merely  empower 
another  branch  of  the  government  to  discharge  its  own  appro- 
priate duties,  in  that  mode  which  seems  to  itself  most  conducive 
to  the  public  interests.  We  are,  by  so  voting,  no  more  responsi- 
ble for  the  manner  in  which  the  negotiation  shall  be  conducted, 
than  we  are  for  the  manner  in  which  one  of  the  heads  of  depart- 
ment may  discharge  the  duties  of  his  office. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  withhold  the  ordinary  means,  we  do 
incur  a  heavy  responsibility.  We  interfere,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
to  prevent  the  action  of  the  government,  according  to  constitu- 
tional forms  and  provisions.  It  ought  constantly  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  our  whole  power  in  the  case  is  merely  incidental.  It 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  181 

is  only  because  public  ministers  must  have  salaries,  like  other 
officers,  and  because  no  salaries  can  be  paid  but  by  our  vote, 
that  the  subject  is  referred  to  us  at  all.  The  Constitution  vests 
the  power  of  appointment  in  the  President  and  Senate ;  the  law 
gives  to  the  President  even  the  power  of  fixing  the  amount  of 
salary,  within  certain  limits ;  and  the  only  question  here  is  upon 
the  appropriation.  There  is  no  doubt  that  we  have  the  power, 
if  we  see  fit  to  exercise  it,  to  break  up  the  mission,  by  withhold- 
ing the  salaries.  We  have  power  also  to  break  up  the  court,  by 
withholding  the  salaries  of  the  judges,  or  to  break  up  the  office 
of  President,  by  withholding  the  salary  provided  for  it  by  law. 
All  these  things,  it  is  true,  we  have  the  power  to  do,  since 
we  hold  the  keys  of  the  treasury.  But,  then,  can  we  right- 
fully exercise  this  power?  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,* 
with  whom  I  have  great  pleasure  in  concurring  on  this  part 
of  the  case,  while  I  regret  that  I  differ  with  him  on  others, 
has  placed  this  question  in  a  point  of  view  which  cannot  be  im- 
proved. These  officers  do,  indeed,  already  exist.  They  are 
public  ministers.  If  they  were  to  negotiate  a  treaty,  and  the  Sen- 
ate should  ratify  it,  it  would  become  a  law  of  the  land,  whether 
we  voted  their  salaries  or  not.  This  shows  that  the  Constitution 
never  contemplated  that  the  House  of  Representatives  should 
act  a  part  in  originating  negotiations  or  concluding  treaties. 

I  know,  Sir,  it  is  a  useless  labor  to  discuss  the  kind  of  power 
which  this  House  incidentally  holds  in  these  cases.  Men  will 
differ  in  that  particular;  and  as  the  forms  of  public  business 
and  of  the  Constitution  are  such  that  the  power  may  be  exer- 
cised by  this  House,  there  will  always  be  some,  or  always  may 
be  some,  who  feel  inclined  to  exercise  it.  For  myself,  I  feel 
bound  not  to  step  out  of  my  own  sphere,  and  neither  to  exer- 
cise or  control  any  authority,  of  which  the  Constitution  has 
intended  to  lodge  the  free  and  unrestrained  exercise  in  other 
hands.  Cases  of  extreme  necessity,  in  which  a  regard  to  public 
safety  is  to  be  the  supreme  law,  or  rather  to  take  place  of  all 
law,  must  be  allowed  to  provide  for  themselves  when  they  arise. 
Arguments  drawn  from  such  possible  cases  will  shed  no  light  on 
the  general  path  of  our  constitutional  duty. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  an  habitual  and  very  sincere  respect  for 

*  Mr.  Buc'ianan. 
VOL.  in.  16 


182  THE  PANAMA    MISSION. 

the  opinions  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware.  And  I  can  say 
with  truth,  that  he  is  the  last  man  in  the  House  from  whom  1 
should  have  looked  for  this  proposition  of  amendment,  or  from 
whom  I  should  have  expected  to  hear  some  of  the  reasons  which 
he  has  gi  ven  in  its  support.  He  says,  that,  in  this  matter,  the 
source  from  which  the  measure  springs  should  have  no  influence 
with  us  whatever.  I  do  not  comprehend  this ;  and  I  cannot  but 
think  the  honorable  gentleman  has  been  surprised  into  an  ex- 
pression which  does  not  convey  his  meaning.  This  measure 
comes  from  the  executive,  and  it  is  an  appropriate  exercise  of 
executive  power.  How  is  it,  then,  that  we  are  to  consider  it  as 
entirely  an  open  question  for  us,  —  as  if  it  were  a  legislative 
measure  originating  with  ourselves  ?  In  deciding  whether  we 
will  enable  the  executive  to  exercise  his  own  duties,  are  we  to 
consider  whether  we  should  have  exercised  them  in  the  same  way 
ourselves  ?  And  if  we  differ  in  opinion  with  the  President  and 
Senate,  are  we  on  that  account  to  refuse  the  ordinary  means  ? 
I  think  not;  unless  we  mean  to  say  that  we  will  ourselves 
exercise  all  the  powers  of  the  government. 

But  the  gentleman  argues,  that,  although  generally  such  a 
course  would  not  be  proper,  yet  in  the  present  case  the  Presi- 
dent has  especially  referred  the  matter  to  our  opinion ;  that  he 
has  thrown  off,  or  attempted  to  throw  off,  his  own  constitutional 
responsibility ;  or  at  least,  that  he  proposes  to  divide  it  with  us ; 
that  he  requests  our  advice,  and  that  we,  having  referred  that 
request  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  have  now  received 
from  that  committee  their  report  thereon. 

Sir,  this  appears  to  me  a  very  mistaken  view  of  the  subject ; 
but  if  it  were  ah1  so,  if  our  advice  and  opinion  had  thus  been 
asked,  it  would  not  alter  the  line  of  our  duty.  We  cannot  take, 
though  it  were  offered,  any  share  in  executive  duty.  We  can- 
not divide  their  own  proper  responsibility  with  other  branches 
of  the  government.  The  President  cannot  properly  ask,  and  we 
cannot  properly  give,  our  advice,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he 
shall  discharge  his  duties.  He  cannot  shift  the  responsibility 
from  himself;  and  we  cannot  assume  it.  Such  a  course,  Sir, 
would  confound  all  that  is  distinct  in  our  respective  constitu- 
tional functions.  It  would  break  down  all  known  divisions  of 
power,  and  put  an  end  to  all  just  responsibility.  If  the  Presi- 
dent were  to  receive  directions  or  advice  from  us,  in  things  per< 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  183 

taining  to  the  duties  of  his  own  office,  what  would  become  of  his 
responsibility  to  us  and  to  the  Senate  ?  We  hold  the  impeach- 
ing power.  We  are  to  bring  him  to  trial  in  any  case  of  mal- 
administration. The  Senate  are  to  judge  him  by  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws ;  and  it  would  be  singular  indeed,  if,  when  such 
occasion  should  arise,  the  party  accused  should  have  the  means 
of  sheltering  himself  under  the  advice  or  opinions  of  his  ac- 
cusers. Nothing  can  be  more  incorrect  or  more  dangerous 
than  this  pledging  the  House  beforehand  to  any  opinion  as  to 
the  manner  of  discharging  executive  duties. 

But,  Sir,  I  see  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  President  has 
asked  us  to  take  this  measure  upon  ourselves,  or  to  divide  the 
responsibility  of  it  with  him.  I  see  no  such  invitation  or  re- 
quest. The  Senate  having  concurred  in  the  mission,  the  Presi- 
dent has  sent  a  message  requesting  the  appropriation,  in  the 
usual  and  common  form.  In  answer  to  a  call  of  the  House,  an- 
other message  is  sent,  communicating  the  correspondence,  and 
setting  forth  the  objects  of  the  mission.  It  is  contended,  that 
by  this  message  he  asks  our  advice,  or  refers  the  subject  to  our 
opinion.  I  do  not  so  understand  it.  Our  concurrence,  he  says, 
by  making  the  appropriation,  is  subject  to  our  free  determina- 
tion. Doubtless  it  is  so.  If  we  determine  at  all,  we  shall  deter- 
mine freely ;  and  the  message  does  no  more  than  leave  to  our- 
selves to  decide  how  far  we  feel  ourselves  bound,  either  to 
support  or  to  thwart  the  executive  department,  in  the  exercise  of 
its  duties.  There  is  no  message,  no  document,  no  communica- 
tion to  us,  which  asks  for  our  concurrence,  otherwise  than  as  we 
shall  manifest  it  by  making  the  appropriation. 

Undoubtedly,  Sir,  the  President  would  be  glad  to  know  that 
the  measure  met  the  approbation  of  the  House.  He  must  be 
aware,  unquestionably,  that  all  leading  measures  mainly  depend 
for  success  on  the  support  of  Congress.  Still,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  on  this  occasion  he  has  sought  to  throw  off  respon- 
sibility from  himself,  or  that  he  desires  us  to  be  answerable  for 
any  thing  beyond  the  discharge  of  our  own  constitutional  duties. 
1  have  already  said,  Sir,  that  I  know  of  no  precedent  for  such  a 
proceeding  as  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware.  None  which  I  think  analogous  has  been  cited.  The 
resolution  of  the  House,  some  years  ago,  on  the  subject  of  the 
slave-trade,  is  a  precedent  the  other  way.  A  committee  had  re- 


184  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

ported  that,  in  order  to  put  an  .end  to  the  slave-trade,  a  mutua. 
right  of  search  might  be  admitted  and  arranged  by  negotiation. 
But  this  opinion  was  not  incorporated,-  as  the  gentleman  now 
proposes  to  incorporate  his  amendment,  into  the  resolution  of 
the  House.  The  resolution  only  declared,  in  general  terms,  that 
the  President  be  requested  to  enter  upon  such  negotiations  with 
other  powers  as  he  might  deem  expedient,  for  the  effectual  abo- 
lition of  the  African  slave-trade.  It  is  singular  enough,  and 
may  serve  as  an  admonition  on  the  present  occasion,  that,  a 
negotiation  having  been  concluded,  in  conformity  to  the  opinions 
expressed,  not,  indeed,  by  the  House,  but  by  the  committee,  the 
treaty,  when  laid  before  the  Senate,  was  rejected  by  that  body. 

The  gentleman  from  Delaware  himself  says,  that  the  Con- 
stitutional responsibility  pertains  alone  to  the  executive  depart- 
ment, and  that  none  other  has  to  do  with  it,  as  a  public  measure. 
These  admissions  seem  to  me  to  conclude  the  question ;  be- 
cause, in  the  first  place,  if  the  constitutional  responsibility  ap- 
pertains alone  to  the  President,  he  cannot  devolve  it  on  us  if  he 
would ;  and  because,  in  the  second  place,  I  see  no  proof  of  any  in- 
tention on  his  part  so  to  devolve  it  on  us,  even  if  he  had  the  power. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  here  take  occasion,  in  order  to  prevent 
misapprehension,  to  observe,  that  no  one  is  more  convinced  than 
I  am,  that  it  is  the  right  of  this  House,  and  often  its  duty,  to 
express  its  general  opinion  in  regard  to  questions  of  foreign 
policy.  Nothing,  certainly,  is  more  proper.  I  have  concurred 
in  such  proceedings,  and*  am  ready  to  do  so  again.  On  those 
great  subjects,  for  instance,  which  form  the  leading  topics  in  this 
discussion,  it  is  not  only  the  right  of  the  House  to  express  its 
opinions,  but  I  think  it  its  duty  to  do  so,  if  it  should  suppose  the 
executive  to  be  pursuing  a  general  course  of  policy  which  the 
House  itself  will  not  ultimately  approve.  But  that  is  something 
entirely  different  from  the  present  suggestion.  Here  it  is  pro- 
posed to  decide,  by  our  vote,  what  shall  be  discussed  by  particu- 
lar ministers,  already  appointed,  when  they  shall  meet  the  min- 
isters of  the  other  powers.  This  is  not  a  general  expression  of 
opinion.  It  is  a  particular  direction,  or  a  special  instruction. 
It?  operation  is  limited  to  the  conduct  of  particular  men,  on  a 
particular  occasion.  Sttch  a  thing,  Sir,  is  wholly  unprecedented 
Li  our  history.  When  the  House  proceeds  in  the  accustomed 
way,  by  general  resolution,  its  sentiments  apply,  as  far  as  ex- 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  185 

pressed,  to  all  public  agents,  and  on  all  occasions.  They  apply 
to  the  whole  course  of  policy,  and  must  necessarily  be  felt  every- 
where. But  if  we  proceed  by  way  of  direction  to  particular 
ministers,  we  must  direct  them  all.  In  short,  we  must  take  upon 
ourselves  to  furnish  diplomatic  instructions  in  all  cases. 

We  now  propose  to  prescribe  what  our  ministers  shall  discuss, 
and  what  they  shall  not  discuss,  at  Panama.  But  there  is  no 
subject  coming  up  for  discussion  at  Panama,  which  might  not 
also  be  proposed  for  discussion  either  here,  or  at  Mexico,  or  in 
the  capital  of  Colombia.  If  we  direct  what  our  ministers  at 
Panama  shall  or  shall  not  say  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Monroe's 
declaration,  for  example,  why  should  we  not  proceed  to  say  also 
what  our  other  ministers  abroad,  or  our  Secretary  at  home,  shall 
say  on  the  same  subject  ?  There  is  precisely  the  same  reason 
for  the  one  as  for  the  other.  The  course  of  the  House  hitherto, 
Sir,  has  not  been  such.  It  has  expressed  its  opinions,  when  it- 
deemed  proper  to  express  them  at  all,  on  great  leading  questions, 
by  resohition,  and  in  a  general  form.  These  general  opinions, 
being  thus  made  known,  have  doubtless  always  had,  and  such 
expressions  of  opinion  doubtless  always  will  have,  their  effect. 
This  is  the  practice  of  the  government.  It  is  a  salutary  prac- 
tice ;  but  if  we  carry  it  further,  or  rather  if  we  adopt  a  very  dif- 
ferent practice,  and  undertake  to  prescribe  to  our  public  minis- 
ters what  they  shall  discuss,  and  what  they  shall  not  discuss,  we 
take  upon  ourselves  that  which,  in  my  judgment,  does  not  at  all 
belong  to  us.  I  see  no  more  propriety'in  our  deciding  now  in 
what  manner  these  ministers  shall  discharge  their  duty,  than 
there  would  have  been  in  our  prescribing  to  the  President  and 
Senate  what  persons  ought  to  be  appointed  ministers. 

An  honorable  member  from  Virginia,*  who  spoke  some  days 
ago,  seems  to  go  still  further  than  the  member  from  Delaware. 
He  maintains,  that  we  may  distinguish  between  the  various  ob- 
jects contemplated  by  the  executive  in  the  proposed  negotiation, 
and  adopt  some  and  reject  others.  And  this  high,  delicate,  and 
important  trust,  the  gentleman  deduces  simply  from  our  pov.'er 
to  withhold  the  ministers'  salaries.  The  process  of  the  gentle- 
man's argument  appears  to  me  as  singular  as  its  conclusion. 
He  founds  himself  on  the  legal  maxim,  that  he  who  has  the 

*  Mr.  Rives. 
16* 


186  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

power  to  give  may  annex  to  the  gift  whatever  condition  or  quali- 
fication he  chooses.  This  maxim,  Sir,  would  be  applicable  to 
the  present  case,  if  we  were  the  sovereigns  of  the  country ;  if 
all  power  were  in  our  hands ;  if  the  public  money  were  entirely 
our  own  ;  if  our  appropriation  of  it  were  mere  grace  and  favor ; 
and  if  there  were  no  restraints  upon  us  but  our  own  sovereign 
will  and  pleasure.  But  the  argument  totally  forgets  that  we  are 
ourselves  but  public  agents ;  that  our  power  over  the  treasury  is 
but  that  of  stewards  over  a  trust  fund ;  that  we  have  nothing  to 
give,  and  therefore  no  gifts  to  limit  or  qualify;  that  it  is  as 
much  our  duty  to  appropriate  to  proper  objects,  as  to  withhold 
appropriations  from  such  as  are  improper;  and  that  it  is  as 
much,  and  as  clearly,  our  duty  to  appropriate  in  a  proper  and 
constitutional  manner,  as  to  appropriate  at  all. 

The  same  honorable  member  advanced  another  idea,  in  which 
I  cannot  concur.  He  does  not  admit  that  confidence  is  to  be 
reposed  in  the  executive,  on  the  present  occasion,  because  con- 
fidence, he  argues,  implies  only  that,  not  knowing  ourselves 
what  will  be  done  in  a  given  case  by  others,  we  trust  those  who 
are  to  act  in  it,  that  they  will  act  right ;  and  as  we  know  the 
course  likely  to  be  pursued  in  regard  to  this  subject  by  the  ex- 
ecutive, confidence  can  have  nq  place.  This  seems  a  singular 
notion  of  confidence,  and  certainly  is  not  my  notion  of  that  con- 
fidence which  the  Constitution  requires  one  branch  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  repose  in  another.  The  President  is  not  our  agent, 
but,  like  ourselves,  the  agent  of  the  people.  They  have  trusted 
to  his  hands  the  proper  duties  of  his  office ;  and  we  are  not  to 
take  those  duties  out  of  his  hands,  from  any  opinion  of  our 
own  that  we  should  execute  them  better  ourselves.  The  confi- 
dence which  is  due  from  us  to  the  executive,  and  from  the  ex- 
ecutive to  us,  is  not  personal,  but  official  and  constitutional.  It 
has  nothing  to  do  with  individual  likings  or  dislikings;  but 
results  from  that  division  of  power  among  departments,  and 
those  limitations  on  the  authority  of  each,  which  belong  to  the 
nature  and  frame  of  our  government.  It  would  be  unfortunate 
indeed,  if  our  line  of  constitutional  action  were  to  vibrate 
backward  and  forward,  according  to  our  opinions  of  persons, 
swerving  this  way  to-day,  from  undue  attachment,  and  the  other 
way  to-morrow,  from  distrust  or  dislike.  This  may  sometimes 
happen  from  the  weakness  of  our  virtues,  or  the  excitement  of 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  187 

our  passions ;  but  I  trust  it  will  not  be  coolly  recommended  to 
us,  as  the  rightful  course  of  public  conduct. 

It  is  obvious  to  remark,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  Senate  have 
not  undertaken  to  give  directions  or  instructions  in  this  case. 
That  body  is  closely  connected  with  the  President  in  executive 
measures.  Its  consent  to  these  very  appointments  is  made  ab- 
solutely necessary  by  the  Constitution ;  yet  it  has  not  seen  fit, 
in  this  or  any  other  case,  to  take  upon  itself  the  responsibility  of 
directing  the  mode  in  which  the  negotiations  should  be  con- 
ducted. 

For  these  reasons,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  for  giving  no  instruc- 
tions, advice,  or  directions  in  the  case.  I  prefer  leaving  it  where, 
in  my  judgment,  the  Constitution  has  left  it;  to  executive  dis- 
cretion and  executive  responsibility. 

But,  Sir,  I  think  there  are  other  objections  to  the  amendment. 
There  are  parts  of  it  which  I  could  not  agree  to,  if  it  were 
proper  to  attach  any  such  condition  to  our  vote.  As  to  all  that 
part  of  the  amendment,  indeed,  which  asserts  the  neutral  policy 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  inexpediency  of  forming  alliances, 
no  man  assents  to  those  sentiments  more  readily,  or  more  en- 
tirely, than  myself.  On  these  points  we  are  all  agreed.  Such 
is  our  opinion;  such,  the  President  assures  us,  in  terms,  is  his 
opinion;  such  we  know  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  country.  If  it 
be  thought  necessary  to  affirm  opinions  which  no  one  either 
denies  or  doubts,  by  a  resolution  of  the  House,  I  shall  cheerfully 
concur  in  it.  But  there  is  one  part  of  the  proposed  amendment 
to  which  I  could  not  agree  in  any  form.  I  wish  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman from  Delaware  himself  to  reconsider  it.  I  pray  him  to 
look  at  it  again,  and  to  see  whether  he  means  what  it  expresses 
or  implies ;  for,  on  this  occasion,  I  should  be  more  gratified  by 
seeing  that  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  had  become  sensi- 
ble that  he  had  fallen  into  some  error  in  this  respect,  than  by 
seeing  the  vote  of  the  House  against  him  by  any  majority  what- 
ever. 

That  part  of  the  amendment  to  which  I  now  object  is  that 
which  requires,  as  a  condition  of  the  resolution  before  us,  that 
the  ministers  shall  not  "  be  authorized  to  discuss,  consider,  or 
consult  upon  any  measure  which  shall  commit  the  present  or 
future  neutral  rights  or  duties  of  these  United  States,  either  aa 
may  regard  European  nations,  or  between  the  several  states  of 
Mexico  and  South  America." 


188  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

I  need  hardly  repeat,  that  this  amounts  to  a  precise  instruc- 
tion. It  being  understood  that  the  ministers  shall  not  be  au- 
thorized to  discuss  particular  subjects,  is  a  mode  of  speech  pre- 
cisely equivalent  to  saying,  u  provided  the  ministers  be  instruct- 
ed," or  "  the  ministers  being  instructed,  not  to  discuss  those  sub- 
jects." Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  or  can  be  said, 
about  this  amendment  being  no  more  than  a  general  expression 
of  opinion,  or  an  abstract  proposition,  this  part  of  it  is  an  exact 
and  definite  instruction.  It  prescribes  to  public  ministers  the 
precise  manner  in  which  they  are  to  conduct  a  public  negotia- 
tion ;  a  duty  manifestly  and  exclusively  belonging,  in  my  judg- 
ment, to  the  executive,  and  not  to  us. 

But  if  we  possessed  the  power  to  give  instructions,  this  in- 
struction would  not  be  a  proper  one  to  give.  Let  us  examine  it. 
The  ministers  shall  not  "  discuss,  consider,  or  consult  upon  any 
measure  which  shall  commit  the  present  or  future  neutral  rights 
or  duties  of  these  United  States,  either  as  may  regard  European 
nations,  or  between  the  several  states  of  Mexico  and  South 
America." 

Now,  Sir,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  they  are 
not  only  not  to  agree  to  any  such  measure,  but  they  are  not  to 
discuss  it.  If  proposed  to  them,  they  are  not  to  give  reasons 
for  declining  it.  Indeed,  they  cannot  reject  it ;  they  can  only 
say  they  are  not  authorized  to  consider  it.  Would  it  not  be 
better,  Sir,  to  leave  these  agents  at  liberty  to  explain  the  policy 
of  our  government,  fully  and  clearly,  and  to  show  the  reasons 
which  induce  us  to  abstain,  as  far  as  possible,  from  foreign  con- 
nections, and  to  act  in  all  things  with  a  scrupulous  regard  to 
the  duties  of  neutrality  ? 

But  again ;  they  are  to  discuss  no  measure  which  may  com- 
mit our  neutral  rights  or  duties.  To  commit  is  somewhat  in- 
definite. May  they  not  modify  or  in  any  degree  alter  our 
neutral  rights  and  duties?  If  not,  I  hardly  know  whether  a 
common  treaty  of  commerce  could  be  negotiated ;  because  all 
such  treaties  affect  or  modify,  more  or  less,  the  neutral  rights  or 
duties  of  the  parties ;  especially  ah1  such  treaties  as  our  habitual 
policy  leads  us  to  form.  But  I  suppose  the  author  of  the 
amendment  uses  the  word  in  a  larger  and  higher  sense.  He 
means  that  the  ministers  shall  not  discuss  or  consider  any  meas- 
ure which  may  have  a  tendency,  in  any  degree,  to  place  us  in  a 


THE   PANAMA   MISSION.  139 

hostile  attitude  towards  any  foreign  state.  And  here,  again,  one 
cannot  help  repeating,  that  the  prohibition  is,  not  against  propos- 
ing or  assenting  to  any  such  measure,  but  against  considering  it, 
against  answering  it  if  proposed,  against  resisting  it  with  reasons. 
But  if  this  objection  were  removed,  still  the  instruction  could 
not  properly  be  given.  What  important  or  leading  measure  is 
there,  connected  with  our  foreign  relations,  which  can  be  adopt- 
ed without  the  possibility  of  committing  us  to  the  necessity  of  a 
hostile  attitude  ?  Any  assertion  of  our  plainest  rights  may,  by 
possibility,  have  that  effect.  The  author  of  the  amendment 
seems  to  suppose  that  our  pacific  relations  can  never  be  changed 
but  by  our  own  option.  He  seems  not  to  be  aware  that  other 
states  may  compel  us,  in  defence  of  our  own  rights,  to  meas- 
ures which,  in  their  ultimate  tendency,  may  commit  our  neu- 
trality. Let  me  ask,  if  the  ministers  of  other  powers,  at  Pana- 
ma, should  signify  to  our  agents  that  it  was  in  contemplation 
immediately  to  take  some  measure  which  these  agents  knew  to 
be  hostile  to  our  policy,  adverse  to  our  rights,  and  such  as  we 
could  not  submit  to ;  should  they  be  left  free  to  speak  the  senti- 
ments of  their  government,  to  protest  against  the  measure,  and 
to  declare  that  the  United  States  would  not  see  it  carried  into 
effect?  Or  should  they,  as  this  amendment  proposes,  be  en- 
joined to  silence,  to  let  the  measure  proceed,  in  order  that  after- 
wards, when  perhaps  we  have  gone  to  war  to  redress  the  evil,  we 
may  learn  that,  if  our  objections  had  been  fairly  and  frankly  stat- 
ed, the  step  would  not  have  been  taken  ?  Look,  Sir,  to  the  very 
case  of  Cuba,  the  most  delicate  and  vastly  the  most  important 
point  in  all  our  foreign  relations.  Do  gentlemen  think  they 
exhibit  skill  or  statesmanship  in  laying  such  restraints  as  they 
propose  on  our  ministers,  in  regard  to  this  among  other  sub- 
jects? It  has  been  made  matter  of  complaint,  that  the  execu> 
tive  has  not  used,  already,  a  more  decisive  tone  towards  Mexico 
and  Colombia,  in  regard  to  their  designs  on  this  island.  Pray, 
Sir,  what  tone  could  be  taken  under  these  instructions  ?  Not 
one  word,  not  one  single  word,  could  be  said  on  the  subject.  If 
asked  whether  the  United  States  would  consent  to  the  occupa- 
tion of  that  island  by  those  republics,  or  to  its  transfer  by  Spain 
to  a  European  power,  or  whether  we  should  resist  such  occu- 
pation or  such  transfer,  what  could  they  say  ?  "  That  is  a  mat- 
ter we  cannot  discuss,  and  cannot  consider;  it  would  commit 


190  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

our  neutral  relations ;  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  express  the  senti- 
ments of  our  government  on  the  subject;  we  have  nothing  at  ail 
to  say."  Is  this,  Sir,  what  the  gentlemen  wish,  or  what  they 
would  recommend  ? 

If,  Sir,  we  give  these  instructions,  and  they  should  be  obeyed, 
and  inconvenience  or  evil  result,  who  is  answerable?  And  I 
suppose  it  is  expected  they  will  be  obeyed.  Certainly  it  cannot 
be  intended  to  give  them,  and  not  take  the  responsibility  of  the 
consequences,  if  they  are  followed.  It  cannot  be  intended  to 
hold  the  President  answerable  both  ways';  first,  to  compel  him 
to  obey  our  instructions,  and,  secondly,  to  make  him  responsible 
if  evil  comes  from  obeying  them. 

Sir,  events  may  change.  If  we  had  the  power  to  give  instruc- 
tions, and  if  these  proposed  instructions  were  proper  to  be  given, 
before  we  arrive  at  our  own  homes  affairs  may  take  a  new  di- 
rection, and  the  public  interest  require  new  and  corresponding 
orders  to  our  agents  abroad. 

This  is  said  to  be  an  extraordinary  case,  and,  on  that  account, 
to  justify  our  interference.  If  the  fact  were  true,  the  consequence 
would  not  follow.  If  it  be  the  exercise  of  a  power  assigned  by 
the  Constitution  to  the  executive,  it  can  make  no  difference 
whether  the  occasion  be  common  or  uncommon.  But,  in  truth, 
there  have  been  much  stronger  cases  for  the  interference  of  the 
House,  where,  nevertheless,  the  House  has  not  interfered.  For 
example,  in  the  negotiations  for  peace  carried  on  at  Ghent.  In 
that  case,  Congress,  by  both  houses,  had  declared  war  for  cer- 
tain alleged  causes.  After  the  war  had  lasted  some  years,  the 
President,  with  the  advice  of  the  Senate,  appointed  ministers  to 
treat  of  peace ;  and  he  gave  them  such  instructions  as  he  saw 
fit.  Now,  as  the  war  was  declared  by  Congress,  and  was  waged 
to  obtain  certain  ends,  it  would  have  been  plausible  to  say  that 
Congress  ought  to  know  the  instructions  under  which  peace 
was  to  be  negotiated,  that  they  might  see  whether  the  objects 
for  which  the  war  was  declared  had  been  abandoned.  Yet  no 
such  claim  was  set  up.  The  President  gave  instructions  such 
as  his  judgment  dictated,  and  neither  house  asserted  any  right 
of  interference. 

Sir,  there  are  gentlemen  in  this  House,  opposed  to  this  mis- 
sion, who,  I  hope,  will  nevertheless  consider  this  question  of 
amendment  on  general  constitutional  grounds.  They  are  gen 


THE  PANAMA   MISSION.  191 

tiemen  of  much  estimation  in  the  community,  likely,  I  hope, 
long  to  continue-  in  the  public  service ;  and  I  trust  they  will 
well  reflect  on  the  effect  of  this  amendment  on  the  separate 
powers  and  duties  of  the  several  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

An  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania*  has  alluded  to 
a  resolution  introduced  by  me  the  session  before  the  last.  I 
should  not  have  referred  to  it  myself,  had  he  not  invited  the 
reference ;  but  I  am  happy  in  the  opportunity  of  showing  how 
that  resolution  coincides  with  every  thing  which  I  say  to- 
day. What  was  that  resolution  ?  When  an  interesting  people 
were  struggling  for  national  existence  against  a  barbarous  des- 
potism, when  there  were  good  hopes  (hopes  yet,  I  trust,  to  be 
fully  realized)  of  their  success,  and  when  the  Holy  Alliance  had 
pronounced  against  them  certain  false  and  abominable  doc- 
trines, I  moved  the  House  to  resolve  —  what?  Simply  that 
provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  to  defray  the  expense  of  an 
agent  or  commissioner  to  that  country,  whenever  the  President 
should  deem  it  expedient  to  make  such  appointment.  Did  I 
propose  any  instruction  to  the  President,  or  any  limit  on  his  dis- 
cretion? None  at  all,  Sir;  none  at  all.  What  resemblance, 
then,  can  be  found  between  that  resolution  and  this  amend- 
ment? Let  those  who  think  any  such  resemblance  exists 
adopt,  if  they  will,  the  words  of  the  resolution  as  a  substitute 
for  this  amendment.  We  shall  gladly  take  them. 

I  am  therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  against  the  amendment,  not 
only  as  not  being  a  proper  manner  of  exercising  any  power  be- 
longing to  this  House,  but  also  as  not  containing  instructions 
fit  to  be  given  if  we  possessed  the  power  of  giving  them.  And 
as  my  vote  will  rest  on  these  grounds,  I  might  terminate  my  re- 
marks here;  but  the  discussion  has  extended  over  a  broader 
surface,  and,  following  where  others  have  led,  I  will  ask  your  in- 
dulgence to  a  few  observations  on  the  more  general  topics  of  the 
debate. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  our  fortune  to  be  called  upon  to  act  our 
part  as  public  men  at  a  most  interesting  era  in  human  affairs. 
The  short  period  of  your  life  and  of  mine  has  been  thick  and 
crowded  with  the  most  important  events.  Not  only  new  inter- 
ests and  new  relations  have  sprung  up  among  states,  but  new 

*  Mr.  Hemphill.  * 


192  THE   PANAMA    MISSION. 

societies,  new  nations,  and  families  of  nations,  have  risen  to  take 
their  places  and  perform  their  parts  in  the  order  and  the  inter- 
course of  the  world.  Every  man  aspiring  to  the  character  of  a 
statesman  must  endeavor  to  enlarge  his  views  to  meet  this  new 
state  of  things.  He  must  aim  at  an  adequate  comprehension  of  it, 
and  instead  of  being  satisfied  with  that  narrow  political  sagacity, 
which,  like  the  power  of  minute  vision,  sees  small  things  accu- 
rately, but  can  see  nothing  else,  he  must  look  to  the  far  horizon, 
and  embrace  in  his  broad  survey  whatever  the  series  of  recent 
events  has  brought  into  connection,  near  or  remote,  with  the 
country  whose  interests  he  studies  to  serve. 

We  have  seen  eight  states,  formed  out  of  colonies  on  our 
own  continent,  assume  the  rank  of  nations.  This  is  a  mighty 
revolution,  and  when  we  consider  what  an  extent  of  the  surface 
of  the  globe  they  cover,  through  what  climates  they  extend,  what 
population  they  contain,  and  what  new  impulses  they  must  de- 
rive from  this  change  of  government,  we  cannot  but  perceive 
that  great  effects  are  likely  to  be  produced  on  the  intercourse 
and  the  interests  of  the  civilized  world.  Indeed,  it  has  been  for- 
cibly said,  by  the  intelligent  and  distinguished  statesman  who 
conducts  the  foreign  relations  of  England,*  that  when  we  now 
speak  of  Europe  and  the  world,  we  mean  Europe  and  America ; 
and  that  the  different  systems  of  these  two  portions  of  the  globe, 
and  their  several  and  various  interests,  must  be  thoroughly  stud- 
ied and  nicely  balanced  by  the  statesmen  of  the  times. 

In  many  respects,  Sir,  the  European  and  the  American  na- 
tions are  alike.  They  are  alike  Christian  states,  civilized  states, 
and  commercial  states.  They  have  access  to  the  same  common 
fountains  of  intelligence;  they  all  draw  from  those  sources 
which  belong  to  the  whole  civilized  world.  In  knowledge  and 
letters,  in  the  arts  of  peace  and  war,  they  differ  in  degrees ;  but 
they  bear,  nevertheless,  a  general  resemblance.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  matters  of  government  and  social  institution,  the  na- 
tions on  this  continent  are  founded  upon  principles  which  never 
did  prevail,  to  considerable  extent,  either  at  any  other  time  or  in 
any  other  place.  There  has  never  been  presented  to  the  mind 
of  man  a  more  interesting  subject  of  contemplation  than  the 
establishment  of  so  many  nations  in  America,  partaking  in  the 
civilization  and  in  the  arts  of  the  Old  World,  but  having  left  be- 

*  Mr.  Canning. 


THE   PANAMA   MISSION.  193 

hind  them  those  cumbrous  institutions  which  had  their  origin  in 
a  dark  and  military  age.  Whatsoever  European  experience  has 
developed  favorable  to  the  freedom  and  the  happiness  of  man, 
whatever  European  genius  has  invented  for  his  improvement  or 
gratification,  whatsoever  of  refinement  or  polish  the  culture  of 
European  society  presents  for  his  adoption  and  enjoyment, — 
all  this  is  offered  to  man  in  America,  with  the  additional  advan- 
tage of  the  full  power  of  erecting  forms  of  government  on  free 
and  simple  principles,  without  overturning  institutions  suited  to 
times  long  passed,  but  too  strongly  supported,  either  by  interests 
or  prejudices,  to  be  shaken  without  convulsions.  This  unprece- 
dented state  of  things  presents  the  happiest  of  all  occasions  for 
an  attempt  to  establish  national  intercourse  upon  improved 
principles,  upon  principles  tending  to  peace  and  the  mutual 
prosperity  of  nations.  In  this  respect  America,  the  whole  of 
America,  has  a  new  career  before  her.  If  we  look  back  on  the 
history  of  Europe,  we  see  for  how  great  a  portion  of  the  last  two 
centuries  her  states  have  been  at  war  for  interests  connected 
mainly  with  her  feudal  monarchies.  Wars  for  particular  dynas- 
ties, wars  to  support  or  prevent  particular  successions,  wars  to 
enlarge  or  curtail  the  dominions  of  particular  crowns,  wars  to 
support  or  to  dissolve  family  alliances,  wars  to  enforce  or  to 
resist  religious  intolerance,  —  what  long  and  bloody  chapters  do 
not  these  fill  in  the  history  of  European  politics !  Who  does 
not  see,  and  who  does  not  rejoice  to  see,  that  America  has  a 
glorious  chance  of  escaping  at  least  these  causes  of  contention  ? 
Who  does  not  see,  and  who  does  not  rejoice  to  see,  that,  on  thia 
continent,  under  other  forms  of  government,  we  have  before  us 
the  noble  hope  of  being  able,  by  the  mere  influence  of  civil  lib 
erty  and  religious  toleration,  to  dry  up  these  outpouring  foun 
tains  of  blood,  and  to  extinguish  these  consuming  fires  of  war 
The  general  opinion  of  the  age  favors  such  hopes  and  such 
prospects.  There  is  a  growing  disposition  to  treat  the  inter 
course  of  nations  more  like  the  useful  intercourse  of  friends 
philosophy,  just  views  of  national  advantage,  good  sense,  the 
dictates  of  a  common  religion,  and  an  increasing  conviction  thaf 
war  is  not  the  interest  of  the  human  race,  all  concur  to  magnify 
the  importance  of  this  new  accession  to  the  list  of  nations. 

We  have  heard  it  said,  Sir,  that  the  topic  of  South  American 
independence  is  worn  out,  and  threadbare.     Such  it  may  be 

VOL.    III.  17 


194  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

Sir,  to  those  who  have  contemplated  it  merely  as  an  article  of 
news,  like  the  fluctuation  of  the  markets,  or  the  rise  and  fall 
of  stocks.  Such  it  may  be  to  those  who  can  see  no  conse- 
quences following  from  these  great  events.  But  whoever  has 
either  understood  their  present  importance,  or  can  at  all  esti- 
mate their  future  influence,  whoever  has  reflected  on  the  new 
relations  they  introduce  with  other  states,  whoever,  among  our- 
selves especially,  has  meditated  on  the  new  relations  which  we 
now  bear  to  them,  and  the  striking  attitude  in  which  we  our- 
selves are  now  placed,  as  the  oldest  of  the  American  nations, 
will  feel  that  the  topic  can  never  be  without  interest ;  and  will 
be  sensible  that,  whether  we  are  wise  enough  to  perceive  it  or 
not,  the  establishment  of  South  American  independence  will 
affect  all  nations,  and  ourselves  perhaps  more  than  any  other, 
through  all  coming  time. 

But,  Sir,  although  the  independence  of  these  new  states 
seems  effectually  accomplished,  yet  a  lingering  and  hopeless  war 
is  kept  up  against  them  bv  Spain.  This  is  greatly  to  be  regret- 
ted by  all  nations.  To  Spain  it  is,  as  every  reasonable  man 
sees,  useless,  and  without  hope.  To  the  new  states  themselves 
it  is  burdensome  and  afflictive.  To  the  commerce  of  neutral 
nations  it  is  annoying  and  vexatious.  There  seems  to  be  some- 
thing of  the  pertinacity  of  the  Spanish  character  in  holding  on 
in  such  a  desperate  course.  It  reminds  us  of  the  seventy  years 
during  which  Spain  resisted  the  independence  of  Holland.  I 
think,  however,  that  there  is  some  reason  to  believe  that  the  war 
approaches  its  end.  I  believe  that  the  measures  adopted  by 
our  own  government  have  had  an  effect  in  tending  to  produce 
that  result  I  understand,  at  least,  that  the  question  of  recog- 
nition has  been  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Spanish  govern- 
ment ;  and  it  may  be  hoped  that  a  war  which  Spain  finds  to  be 
so  expensive,  which  the  whole  world  tells  her  is  so  hopeless,  and 
which,  if  continued,  now  threatens  her  with  new  dangers,  she 
may,  ere  long,  have  the  prudence  to  terminate. 

Our  own  course  during  this  contest  between  Spain  and  her  . 
colonies  is  well  known.  Though  entirely  and  strictly  neutral, 
we  were  in  favor  of  early  recognition.  Our  opinions  were  known 
to  the  allied  sovereigns  when  in  congress  at  Aix-la-Chapelle 
in  1818,  at  which  time  the  affairs  of  Spain  and  her  colonies 
were  under  consideration ;  and  probably  the  knowledge  of  those 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  195 

sentiments,  together  with  the  policy  adopted  by  England,  pre- 
vented any  interference  by  other  powers  at  that  time.  Yet  we 
have  treated  Spain  with  scrupulous  delicacy.  We  acted  on  the 
case  as  one  of  civil  war.  We  treated  with  the  new  govern- 
ments as  governments  de  facto.  Not  questioning  the  right  of 
Spain  to  reduce  them  to  their  old  obedience,  if  she  had  the 
power,  we  yet  held  it  to  be  our  right  to  deal  with  them  as  with 
existing  governments  in  fact,  when  the  moment  arrived  at  which 
it  became  apparent  and  manifest  that  the  dominion  of  Spain 
over  these,  her  ancient  colonies,  was  at  an  end.  Our  right,  OUT 
interest,  and  our  duty,  all  concurred  at  that  moment  to  recom- 
mend the  recognition  of  their  independence.  We  accordingly 
recognized  it. 

Now,  Sir,  the  history  of  this  proposed  congress  goes  back  to 
an  earlier  date  than  that  of  our  recognition.  It  commences  in 
1821 ;  and  one  of  the  treaties  now  before  us,  proposing  such  a 
meeting,  that  between  Colombia  and  Chili,  was  concluded  in 
July,  1822,  a  few  months  only  after  we  had  acknowledged  the 
independence  of  the  new  states.  The  idea  originated,  doubt- 
less, in  the  wish  to  strengthen  the  union  among  the  new  govern- 
ments, and  to  promote  the  common  cause  of  all,  the  effectual 
resistance  to  Spanish  authority.  As  independence  was  at  that 
time  their  leading  object,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  they  con- 
templated this  mode  of  mutual  intercourse  and  mutual  arrange- 
ment, as  favorable  to  the  concentration  of  purpose  and  of  ac- 
tion necessary  for  the  attainment  of  that  object.  But  this  pur- 
pose of  the  congress,  or  this  leading  idea,  in  which  it  may  be 
supposed  to  have  originated,  has  led,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  great 
misapprehensions  as  to  its  true  character,  and  great  mistakes  in 
regard  to  the  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  our  sending  min- 
isters to  the  meeting.  This  meeting,  Sir,  is  a  congress ;  not  a 
congress  as  the  word  is  known  to  our  Constitution  and  laws, 
for  we  use  it  in  a  peculiar  sense ;  but  as  it  is  known  to  the  law 
of  nations.  A  congress,  by  the  law  of  nations,  is  but  an  ap- 
pointed meeting  for  the  settlement  of  affairs  between  different 
nations,  in  which  the  representatives  or  agents  of  each  treat  and 
negotiate  as  they  are  instructed  by  their  own  government.  In 
other  words,  this  congress  is  a  diplomatic  meeting.  We  are 
asked  to  join  no  government,  no  legislature,  no  league,  acting 
by  votes.  It  is  a  congress,  such  as  those  of  Westphalia,  of 


196  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

Nimeguen,  of  Ryswick,  or  of  Utrecht ;  or  such  as  those  which 
have  been  held  in  Europe  in  our  own  time.  No  nation  is  a 
party  to  any  thing  done  in  such  assemblies,  to  which  it  does  not 
expressly  make  itself  a  party.  No  one's  rights  are  put  at  the 
disposition  of  any  of  the  rest,  or  of  all  the  rest.  What  minis- 
ters agree  to,  being  afterwards  duly  ratified  at  home,  binds  their 
government ;  and  nothing  else  binds  the  government.  Whatso- 
ever is  done,  to  which  they  do  not  assent,  neither  binds  the  min- 
isters nor  their  government,  any  more  than  if  they  had  not  been 
present. 

These  truths,  Sir,  seem  too  plain  and  too  commonplace  to 
be  stated.  I  find  my  apology  only  in  those  misapprehensions 
of  the  character  of  the  meeting  to  which  I  have  referred  both 
now  and  formerly.  It  has  been  said  that  commercial  treaties 
are  not  negotiated  at  such  meetings.  Far  otherwise  is  the  fact. 
Among  the.  earliest  of  important  stipulations  made  in  favor  of 
commerce  and  navigation,  were  those  at  Westphalia.  What 
we  call  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  was  a  bundle  of  treaties,  negotiat- 
ed at  that  congress;  some  of  peace,  some  of  boundary,  and 
others  of  commerce.  Again,  it  has  been  said,  in  order  to  prove 
that  this  meeting  is  a  sort  of  confederacy,  that  such  assemblies 
are  out  of  the  way  of  ordinary  negotiation,  and  are  always 
founded  on,  and  provided  for,  by  previous  treaties.  Pray,  Sir, 
what  treaty  preceded  the  congress  at  Utrecht  ?  And  the  meeting 
of  our  plenipotentiaries  with  those  of  England  at  Ghent,  what 
was  thai  but  a  congress?  and  what  treaty  preceded  it?  It  is 
said,  again,  that  there  is  no  sovereign  to  whom  our  ministers  can 
be  accredited.  Let  me  ask  whether,  in  the  case  last  cited,  our 
ministers  exhibited  their  credentials  to  the  Mayor  of  Ghent  ?  Sir, 
the  practice  of  nations  in  these  matters  is  well  known,  and  is 
free  from  difficulty.  If  the  government  be  not  present,  agents  or 
plenipotentiaries  interchange  their  credentials.  And  when  it  is 
said  that  our  ministers  at  Panama  will  be,  not  ministers,  but 
deputies,  members  of  a  deliberative  body,  not  protected  in  their 
public  character  by  the  public  law,  propositions  are  advanced 
of  which  I  see  no  evidence  whatever,  and  which  appear  to  me 
to  be  wholly  without  foundation. 

It  is  contended  that  this  congress,  by  virtue  of  the  treaties 
whi«  h  the  new  states  have  entered  into,  will  possess  powers 
other  than  those  of  a  diplomatic  character,  as  between  those 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  197 

new  states  themselves.  If  that  were  so,  it  would  be  unimpor- 
tant to  us.  The  real  question  here  is,  What  will  be  our  rela- 
tion with  those  states,  by  sending  ministers  to  this  congress? 
Their  arrangement  among  themselves  will  not  affect  us.  Even 
if  it  were  a  government,  like  our  old  Confederation,  yet,  if  its 
members  had  authority  to  treat  with  us  in  behalf  of  their  re- 
spective nations  on  subjects  on  which  we  have  a  right  to  treat, 
the  congress  might  still  be  a  very  proper  occasion  for  such  ne- 
gotiations. Do  gentlemen  forget  that  the  French  minister  was 
introduced  to  our  old  Congress,  met  it  in  its  sessions,  carried  on 
oral  discussions  with  it,  and  treated  with  it  in  behalf  of  the 
French  king  ?  All  that  did  not  make  him  a  member  of  it,  nor 
connect  him  at  all  with  the  relations  which  its  members  bore  to 
each  other.  As  he  treated  on  the  subject  of  carrying  on  the  war 
against  England,  it  was,  doubtless,  hostile  towards  that  power ; 
but  this  consequence  followed  from  the  object  and  nature  of  the 
stipulations,  and  not  from  the  manner  of  the  intercourse.  The 
representatives  of  these  South  American  states,  it  is  said,  will 
entertain  belligerent  counsels  at  this  congress.  Be  it  so;  we 
shall  not  join  in  such  counsels.  At  the  moment  of  invitation, 
our  government  informed  the  ministers  of  those  states,  that  we 
could  not  make  ourselves  a  party  to  the  war  between  them  and 
Spain,  nor  to  counsels  for  deliberating  on  the  means  of  its  further 
prosecution. 

If,  it  is  asked,  we  send  ministers  to  a  congress  composed  alto- 
gether of  belligerents,  is  it  not  a  breach  of  neutrality?  Cer- 
tainly not;  no  man  can  say  it  is.  Suppose,  Sir,  that  these 
ministers  from  the  new  states,  instead  of  Panama,  were  to 
assemble  at  Bogota,  where  we  already  have  a  minister ;  their 
counsels  at  that  place  might  be  belligerent,  while  the  war  should 
last  with  Spain.  But  should  we  on  that  account  recall  our 
minister  from  Bogota?  The  whole  argument  rests  on  this; 
that  because,  at  the  same  time  and  place,  the  agents  of  the 
South  American  governments  may  negotiate  about  their  own 
relations  with  each  other,  in  regard  to  their  common  war  against 
Spain,  therefore  we  cannot,  at  the  same  time  and  place,  nego- 
tiate with  them,  or  any  of  them,  upon  our  own  neutral  and  com- 
mercial relations.  This  proposition,  Sir,  cannot  be  maintained; 
and  therefore  all  the  inferences  from  it  fail. 

But,  Sir,  I  see  no  proof  that,  as  between  themselves,  the  rep- 
17* 


198  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

resentatives  of  the  South  American  states  are  to  possess  other 
than  diplomatic  powers.  I  refer  to  the  treaties,  which  are  essen- 
tially alike,  and  which  have  been  often  read. 

With  two  exceptions,  (which  I  will  notice,)  the  articles  of 
these  treaties,  describing  the  powers  of  the  congress,  are  sub- 
stantially like  those  of  the  treaty  of  Paris,  in  1814,  providing  for 
the  congress  at  Vienna.  It  was  there  stipulated  that  all  the 
powers  should  send  plenipotentiaries  to  Vienna,  to  regulate,  in 
general  congress,  the  arrangements  to  complete  the  provisions 
of  the  present  treaty.  Now,  it  might  have  been  here  asked,  how 
regulate  ?  How  regulate  in  general  congress  ?  —  regulate  by 
votes?  Sir,  nobody  asked  such  questions;  simply  because  it 
was  to  be  a  congress  of  plenipotentiaries.  The  two  exceptions 
which  I  have  mentioned  are,  that  this  congress  is  to  act  as  a 
council,  and  to  interpret  treaties ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  either 
of  these  to  be  done  which  may  not  be  done  diplomatically. 
What  is  more  common  than  diplomatic  intercourse,  to  explain 
and  to  interpret  treaties  ?  Or  what  more  frequent  than  that  na- 
tions, having  a  common  object,  interchange  mutual  counsels  and 
advice,  through  the  medium  of  their  respective  ministers  ?  To 
bring  this  matter,  Sir,  to  the  test,  let  me  ask,  When  these  minis- 
ters assemble  at  Panama,  can  they  do  any  thing  but  according 
to  their  instructions  ?  Have  they  any  organization,  any  power 
of  action,  or  any  rule  of  action,  common  to  them  all  ?  No  more, 
Sir,  than  the  respective  ministers  at  the  congress  of  Vienna. 
Every  thing  is  settled  by  the  use  of  the  word  Plenipotentiary. 
That  proves  the  meeting  to  be  diplomatic,  and  nothing  else. 
Who  ever  heard  of  a  plenipotentiary  member  of  the  legislature  ? 
a  plenipotentiary  burgess  of  a  city  ?  or  a  plenipotentiary  knight 
of  the  shire  ? 

We  may  dismiss  all  fears,  Sir,  arising  from  the  nature  of  this 
meeting.  Our  agents  will  go  there,  if  they  go  at  all,  in  the 
character  of  ministers,  protected  by  the  public  law,  negotiating 
only  for  ourselves,  and  not  called  on  to  violate  any  neutral 
duty  of  thek  own  government.  If  it  be  that  this  meeting  will 
have  other  powers,  in  consequence  of  other  arrangements  be- 
tween other  states,  of  which  I  see  no  proof,  still  we  shall  not  be 
a  party  to  these  arrangements,  nor  can  we  be  in  any  way  affect- 
ed by  them.  As  far  as  this  government  is  concerned,  nothing 
can  be  done  but  by  negotiation,  as  in  other  cases. 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  199 

It  has  been  affirmed,  that  this  measure,  and  the  sentiments 
expressed  by  the  executive  relative  to  its  objects,  are  an  acknowl- 
edged departure  from  the  neutral  policy  of  the  United  States. 
Sir,  I  deny  that  there  is  an  acknowledged  departure,  or  any  de- 
parture at  all,  from  the  neutral  policy  of  the  country.  What  do 
we  mean  by  our  neutral  policy  ?  Not,  I  suppose,  a  blind  and 
stupid  indifference  to  whatever  is  passing  around  us ;  not  a  total 
disregard  to  approaching  events,  or  approaching  evils,  till  they 
meet  us  full  in  the  face.  Nor  do  we  mean,  by  our  neutral  policy, 
that  we  intend  never  to  assert  our  rights  by  force.  No,  Sir.  We 
mean  by  our  policy  of  neutrality,  that  the  great  objects  of  na- 
tional pursuit  with  us  are  connected  with  peace.  We  covet  no 
provinces ;  we  desire  no  conquests ;  we  entertain  no  ambitious 
projects  of  aggrandizement  by  war.  This  is  our  policy.  But  it 
does  not  follow  from  this,  that  we  rely  less  than  other  nations 
on  our  own  power  to  vindicate  our  own  rights.  We  know  that 
the  last  logic  of  kings  is  also  our  last  logic ;  that  our  own  inter- 
ests must  be  defended  and  maintained  by  our  own  arm ;  and 
that  peace  or  war  may  not  always  be  of  our  own  choosing.  . 
Our  neutral  policy,  therefore,  not  only  justifies,  but  requires,  our 
anxious  attention  to  the  political  events  which  take  place  in  the 
world,  a  skilful  perception  of  their  relation  to  our  own  concerns, 
and  an  early  anticipation  of  their  consequences,  and  firm  and 
timely  assertion  of  what  we  hold  to  be  our  own  rights  and  our 
own  interests.  Our  neutrality  is  not  a  predetermined  absti- 
nence, either  from  remonstrances,  or  from  force.  Our  neutral 
policy  is  a  policy  that  protects  neutrality,  that  defends  neutrality, 
that  takes  up  arms,  if  need  be,  for  neutrality.  When  it  is  said, 
therefore,  that  this  measure  departs  from  our  neutral  policy, 
either  that  policy,  or  the  measure  itself,  is  misunderstood.  It 
implies  either  that  the  object  or  the  tendency  of  the  measure  is 
to  involve  us  in  the  war  of  other  states,  which  I  think  cannot 
be  shown,  or  that  the  assertion  of  our  own  sentiments,  on  points 
affecting  deeply  our  own  interests,  may  place  us  in  a  hostile 
attitude  toward  other  states,  and  that  therefore  we  depart  from 
neutrality ;  whereas  the  truth  is,  that  the  decisive  assertion  and 
the  firm  support  of  these  sentiments  may  be  most  essential  to 
the  maintenance  of  neutrality. 

An  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania  thinks  this  congress* 
will  bring  a  dark  day  over  the  United  States.     Doubtless,  Sir,  it 


200  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

is  an  interesting  moment  in  our  history ;  but  I  see  no  great 
proofs  of  thick-coming  darkness.  But  the  object  of  the  remark 
seemed  to  be  to  show  that  the  President  himself  saw  difficulties 
on  all  sides,  and,  making  a  choice  of  evils,  preferred  rather  to 
send  ministers  to  this  congress,  than  to  run  the  risk  of  exciting 
the  hostility  of  the  states  by  refusing  to  send.  In  other  words, 
the  gentleman  wished  to  prove  that  the  President  intended  an 
alliance ;  although  such  intention  is  expressly  disclaimed. 

Much  commentary  has  been  bestowed  on  the  letters  of  invi- 
tation from  the  ministers.  I  shall  not  go  through  with  verbal 
criticisms  on  these  letters.  Their  general  import  is  plain  enough. 
I  shall  not  gather  together  small  and  minute  quotations,  taking 
a  sentence  here,  a  word  there,  and  a  syllable  in  a  third  place, 
dovetailing  them  into  the  course  of  remark,  till  the  printed  dis- 
course bristles  in  every  line  with  inverted  commas.  I  look  to 
the  general  tenor  of  the  invitations,  and  I  find  that  we  are  asked 
to  take  part  only  in  such  things  as  concern  ourselves.  I  look 
still  more  carefully  to  the  answers,  and  I  see  every  proper  cau- 
tion and  proper  guard.  I  look  to  the  message,  and  I  see  that 
nothing  is  there  contemplated  likely  to  involve  us  in  other  men's 
quarrels,  or  that  may  justly  give  offence  to  any  foreign  state. 
With  this  I  am  satisfied. 

I  must  now  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  to  an  im- 
portant point  in  the  discussion,  I  mean  the  declaration  of  the 
President  in  1823.*  Not  only  as  a  member  of  the  House,  but 
as  a  citizen  of  the  country,  I  have  an  anxious  desire  that  this 
part  of  our  public  history  should  stand  in  its  proper  light.  The 
country  has,  in  my  judgment,  a  very  high  honor  connected  with 
that  occurrence,  which  we  may  maintain,  or  which  we  may  sac- 
rifice. I  look  upon  it  as  a  part  of  its  treasures  of  reputation ; 
and,  for  one,  I  intend  to  guard  it. 

*  In  the  message  of  President  Monroe  to  Congress  at  the  commencement  of 
the  session  of  1823-24,  the  following  passage  occurs:  —  "In  the  wars  of  the 
European  powers,  in  matters  relating  to  themselves,  we  have  never  taken  any 
part,  nor  does  it  comport  with  our  policy  so  to  do.  It  is  only  when  our  rights 
are  invaded,  or  seriously  menaced,  that  we  resent  injuries  or  make  preparations 
for  defence.  With  the  movements  in  this  hemisphere  we  are  of  necessity  mere 
immediately  connected,  and  by  causes  which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened 
and  impartial  observers.  The  political  system  of  the  Allied  Powers  is  essentially 
different,  in  this  respect,  from  that  of  America.  This  difference  proceeds  from 
that  which  exists  in  their  respective  governments.  And  to  the  defence  of  OUT 
own,  which  has  been  achieved  by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  and 
matured  by  the  wisdom  of  their  most  enlightened  citizens,  and  under  which  we 


THE   PANAMA   MISSION.  201 

Sir,  let  us  recur  to  the  important  political  events  which  led  to 
that  declaration,  or  accompanied  it.  In  the  fall  of  1822,  the 
allied  sovereigns  held  their  congress  at  Verona.  The  great  sub- 
ject of  consideration  was  the  condition  of  Spain,  that  country 
then  being  under  the  government  of  the  Corte*.  The  question 
was,  whether  Ferdinand  should  be  reinstated  in  all  his  authority, 
by  the  intervention  of  foreign  force.  Russia,  Prussia,  France, 
and  Austria  were  inclined  to  that  measure ;  England  dissented 
and  protested ;  but  the  course  was  agreed  on,  and  France,  with 
the  consent  of  these  other  Continental  powers,  took  the  conduct 
of  the  operation  into  her  own  hands.  In  the  spring  of  1823,  a 
French  army  was  sent  into  Spain.  Its  success  was  complete. 
The  popular  government  was  overthrown,  and  Ferdinand  re- 
established in  all  his  power.  This  invasion,  Sir,  was  determined 
on,  and  undertaken,  precisely  on  the  doctrines  which  the  allied 
monarchs  had  proclaimed  the  year  before,  at  Laybach ;  that 
is,  that  they  had  a  right  to  interfere  in  the  concerns  of  an- 
other state,  and  reform  its  government,  in  order  to  prevent  the 
effects  of  its  bad  example ;  this  bad  example,  be  it  remembered, 
always  being  the  example  of  free  government.  Now,  Sir,  act- 
ing on  this  principle  of  supposed  dangerous  example,  and  hav- 
ing put  down  the  example  of  the  Cortes  in  Spain,  it  was  nat- 
ural to  inquire  with  what  eyes  they  would  look  on  the  colonies 
of  Spain,  that  were  following  still  worse  examples.  Would 
King  Ferdinand  and  his  allies  be  content  with  what  had  been 
done  in  Spain  itself,  or  would  he  solicit  their  aid,  and  was  it 
likely  they  would  grant  it,  to  subdue  his  rebellious  America^ 
provinces  ? 

Sir,  it  was  in  this  posture  of  affairs,  on  an  occasion  which  has 
already  been  alluded  to,  that  I  ventured  to  say,  early  in  the  ses- 
sion of  December,  1823,  that  these  allied  monarchs  might  possi- 
bly turn  their  attention  to  America ;  that  America  came  within 

have  enjoyed  such  unexampled  felicity,  this  whole  nation  is  devoted.  We  owe 
it,  therefore,  to  candor,  and  to  the  amicable  relations  existing  between  the  United 
States  and  those  powers,  to  declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their 
part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to 
our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  Euio- 
pean  power,  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  gov- 
ernments who  have  declared  their  independence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  in- 
dependence we  have  on  great  consideration  and  on  just  principles  acknowledged, 
we  could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them,  or  con- 
trolling in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the  mani- 
festation of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the  United  States." 


202  THE   PANAMA  MISSION. 

their  avowed  doctrine,  and  that  her  examples  might  very  possi- 
bly attract  their  notice.  The  doctrines  of  Laybach  were  not 
limited  to  any  continent.  Spain  had  colonies  in  America,  and 
having  reformed  Spain  herself  to  the  true  standard,  it  was  not 
impossible  that  they  might  see  fit  to  complete  the  work  by  rec- 
onciling, in  their  way,  the  colonies  to  the  mother  country.  Now, 
Sir,  it  did  so  happen,  that,  as  soon  as  the  Spanish  king  was 
completely  reestablished,  he  invited  the  cooperation  of  his  al- 
lies, in  regard  to  South  America.  In  the  same  month  of  De- 
cember, of  1823,  a  formal  invitation  was  addressed  by  Spain  to 
the  courts  of  St.  Petersburg,  Vienna,  Berlin,  and  Paris,  propos- 
ing to  establish  a  conference  at  Paris,  in  order  that  the  plenipo 
tentiaries  there  assembled  might  aid  Spain  in  adjusting  the 
affairs  of  her  revolted  provinces.  These  affairs  were  proposed  tc 
be  adjusted  in  such  manner  as  should  retain  the  sovereignty  oi 
Spain  over  them ;  and  though  the  cooperation  of  the  allies  by 
force  of  arms  was  not  directly  solicited,  such  was  evidently  the 
object  aimed  at.  The  king  of  Spain,  in  making  this  request  to 
the  members  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  argued  as  it  has  been  seen 
he  might  argue.  He  quoted  their  own  doctrines  of  Laybach ; 
he  pointed  out  the  pernicious  example  of  America ;  and  he  re- 
minded them  that  their  success  in  Spain  itself  had  paved  the 
way  for  successful  operations  against  the  spirit  of  liberty  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic. 

The  proposed  meeting,  however,  did  not  take  place.  Eng- 
land had  already  taken  a  decided  course ;  for  as  early  as  Octo- 
ber, Mr.  Canning,  in  a  conference  with  the  French  minister  in 
London,  informed  him  distinctly  and  expressly,  that  England 
would  consider  any  foreign  interference,  by  force  or  by  menace, 
in  the  dispute  between  Spain  and  the  colonies,  as  a  motive  for 
recognizing  the  latter  without  delay.  It  is  probable  this  deter- 
mination of  the  English  government  was  known  here  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  session  of  Congress ;  and  it  was  under  these 
circumstances,  it  was  in  this  crisis,  that  Mr.  Monroe's  declaration 
was  made.  It  was  not  then  ascertained  whether  a  meeting  of 
the  allies  would  or  would  not  take  place,  to  concert  with  Spain 
the  means  of  reestablishing  her  power ;  but  it  was  plain  enough 
they  would  be  pressed  by  Spain  to  aid  her  operations ;  and  it  was 
plain  enough,  also,  that  they  had  no  particular  liking  to  what  was 
taking  place  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  nor  any  great  disinclina- 


THE   PANAMA   MISSION.  203 

tion  to  interfere.  This  was  the  posture  of  affairs ;  and,  Sir,  I 
concur  entirely  in  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the  resolution  of  a 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,*  that  this  declaration  of  Mr.  Mon- 
roe was  wise,  seasonable,  and  patriotic. 

It  has  been  said,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  to  have  been  a 
loose  and  vague  declaration.  It  was,  I  believe,  sufficiently 
studied.  I  have  understood,  from  good  authority,  that  it  was 
considered,  weighed,  and  distinctly  and  decidedly  approved,  by 
every  one  of  the  President's  advisers  at  that  time.  Our  govern- 
ment could  not  adopt  on  that  occasion  precisely  the  course 
which  England  had  taken.  England  threatened  the  immediate 
recognition  of  the  provinces,  if  the  Allies  should  take  part  with 
Spain  against  them.  We  had  already  recognized  them.  It  re- 
mained, therefore,  only  for  our  government  to  say  how  we  should 
consider  a  combination  of  the  Allied  Powers,  to  effect  objects  in 
America,  as  affecting  ourselves ;  and  the  message  was  intended 
to  say,  what  it  does  say,  that  we  should  regard  such  combina- 
tion as  dangerous  to  us.  Sir,  I  agree  with  those  who  maintain 
the  proposition,  and  I  contend  against  those  who  deny  it,  that 
the  message  did  mean  something ;  that  it  meant  much ;  and  1 
maintain,  against  both,  that  the  declaration  effected  much  good, 
answered  the  end  designed  by  it,  did  great  honor  to  the  foresight 
and  the  spirit  of  the  government,  and  that  it  cannot  now  be 
taken  back,  retracted,  or  annulled,  without  disgrace.  It  met, 
Sir,  with  the  entire  concurrence  and  the  hearty  approbation  of 
the  country.  The  tone  which  it  uttered  found  a  corresponding 
response  in  the  breasts  of  the  free  people  of  the  United  States. 
That  people  saw,  and  they  rejoiced  to  see,  that,  on  a  fit  occa- 
sion, our  weight  had  been  thrown  into  the  right  scale,  and  that, 
without  departing  from  our  duty,  we  had  done  something  use- 
ful, and  something  effectual,  for  the  cause  of  civil  liberty.  One 
general  glow  of  exultation,  one  universal  feeling  of  the  gratified 
love  of  liberty,  one  conscious  and  proud  perception  of  the  con- 
sideration which  the  country  possessed,  and  of  the  respect  and 
honor  which  belonged  to  it,  pervaded  all  bosoms.  Possibly  the 
public  enthusiasm  went  too  far;  it  certainly  did  go  far.  But, 
Sir,  the  sentiment  which  this  declaration  inspired  was  not  con- 
fined to  ourselves.  Its  force  was  felt  everywhere,  by  all  those 
who  <jould  understand  its  object  and  foresee  its  effect.  In  that 

*  Mr.  Marklev 


204  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

very  House  of  Commons  of  which  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  has  spoken  with  such  commendation,  how  was  it  re- 
ceived ?  Not  only,  Sir,  with  approbation,  but,  I  may  say,  with 
no  little  enthusiasm.  While  the  leading  minister*  expressed 
his  entire  concurrence  in  the  sentiments  and  opinions  of  the 
American  President,  his  distinguished  competitor!  in  that  popu- 
lar body,  less  restrained  by  official  decorum,  and  more  at  liberty 
to  give  utterance  to  all  the  feeling  of  the  occasion,  declared  that 
no  event  had  ever  created  greater  joy,  exultation,  and  gratitude 
among  all  the  free  men  in  Europe ;  that  he  felt  pride  in  being 
connected  by  blood  and  language  with  the  people  of  the  United 
States ;  that  the  policy  disclosed  by  the  message  became  a 
great,  a  free,  and  an  independent  nation ;  and  that  he  hoped  his 
own  country  would  be  prevented  by  no  mean  pride,  or  paltry 
jealousy,  from  following  so  noble  and  glorious  an  example. 

It  is  doubtless  true,  as  I  took  occasion  to  observe  the  other 
day,  that  this  declaration  must  be  considered  as  founded  on  our 
rights,  and  to  spring  mainly  from  a  regard  to  their  preservation. 
It  did  not  commit  us,  at  all  events,  to  take  up  arms  on  any  in- 
dication of  hostile  feeling  by  the  powers  of  Europe  towards 
South  America.  If,  for  example,  all  the  states  of  Europe  had 
refused  to  trade  with  South  America  until  her  states  should 
return  to  their  former  allegiance,  that  would  have  funished  no 
cause  of  interference  to  us.  Or  if  an  armament  had  been  fur- 
nished by  the  Allies  to  act  against  provinces  the  most  remote 
from  us,  as  Chili  or  Buenos  Ayres,  the  distance  of  the  scene 
of  action  diminishing  our  apprehension  of  danger,  and  dimin- 
ishing also  our  means  of  effectual  interposition,  might  still 
have  left  us  to  content  ourselves  with  remonstrance.  But  a 
very  different  case  would  have  arisen,  if  an  army,  equipped  and 
maintained  by  these  powers,  had  been  landed  on  the  shores  of 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  commenced  the  war  in  our  own  imme- 
diate neighborhood.  Such  an  event  might  justly  be  regarded 
as  dangerous  to  ourselves,  and,  on  that  ground,  call  for  decided 
and  immediate  interference  by  us.  The  sentiments  and  the 
policy  announced  by  the  declaration,  thus  understood,  were, 
therefore,  in  strict  conformity  to  our  duties  and  our  interest. 

Sir,  I  look  on  the  message  of  December,  1823,  as  forming  a 
bright  page  in  our  history.  I  will  help  neither  to  erase  it  nor  tear 

*  Mr.  Canning.  t  Mr.  Brougham. 


THE  PANAMA    MISSION  903 

it  out ;  nor  shall  it  be,  by  any  act  of  mine,  blurred  or  blotted. 
It  did  honor  to  the  sagacity  of  the  government,  and  I  will  not 
diminish  that  honor.  It  elevated  the  hopes,  and  gratified  the 
patriotism,  of  the  people.  Over  those  hopes  I  will  not  bring  a 
mildew ;  nor  will  I  put  that  gratified  patriotism  to  shame. 

But  how  should  it  happen,  Sir,  that  there  should  now  be  such 
a  new-born  fear  on  the  subject  of  this  declaration  ?  The  crisis 
is  over ;  the  danger  is  past.  At  the  time  it  was  made,  there,  was 
real  ground  for  apprehension ;  now  there  is  none.  It  was  then 
possible,  perhaps  not  improbable,  that  the  Allied  Powers  might  in- 
terfere with  America.  There  is  now  no  ground  for  any  such  fear. 
Most  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  now  spoken  on  the  subject  were 
at  that  time  here.  They  all  heard  the  declaration.  Not  one  of 
them  complained.  And  yet  now,  when  all  danger  is  over,  we 
are  vehemently  warned  against  the  sentiments  of  the  declaration. 

To  avoid  this  apparent  inconsistency,  it  is,  however,  contend- 
ed, that  new  force  has  been  recently  given  to  this  declaration. 
But  of  this  I  see  no  evidence  whatever.  I  see  nothing  in  any 
instructions  or  communications  from  our  government  changing 
the  character  of  that  declaration  in  any  degree.  There  is,  as  I 
have  before  said,  in  one  of  Mr.  Poinsett's  letters,  an  inaccuracy 
of  expression.  If  he  has  recited  correctly  his  conversation  with 
the  Mexican  minister,  he  did  go  too  far,  farther  than  any  instruc- 
tion warranted.  But,  taking  his  whole  correspondence  together, 
it  is  quite  manifest  that  he  has  deceived  nobody,  and  that  he  has 
not  committed  the  country.  On  the  subject  of  a  pledge,  he  put 
the  Mexican  minister  entirely  right.  He  stated  to  him  distinctly, 
that  this  government  had  given  no  pledge  which  others  could 
call  upon  it  to  redeem.  What  could  be  more  explicit  ?  Again, 
Sir,  it  is  plain  that  Mexico  thought  us  under  no  greater  pledge 
than  England ;  for  the  letters  to  the  English  and  American  min- 
isters, requesting  interference,  were  in  precisely  the  same  words. 
When  this  passage  in  Mr.  Poinsett's  letter  was  first  noticed,  we 
were  assured  there  was  and  must  be  some  other  authority  for  it. 
It  was  confidently  said  he  had  instructions  authorizing  it  in  his 
pocket.  It  turns  out  otherwise.  As  little  ground  is  there  to 
complain  of  any  thing  in  the  Secretary's  letter  to  Mr.  Poinsett. 
It  seems  to  me  to  be  precisely  what  it  should  be.  It  does  not, 
as  has  been  alleged,  propose  any  cooperation  between  the  gov- 
ernment of  Mexico  and  our  own.  Nothing  like  it.  It  instructs 

VOL.    III.  18 


206  THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

our  ministers  to  bring  to  the  notice  of  the  Mexican  government 
the  line  of  policy  which  we  have  marked  out  for  ourselves,  act- 
ing on  our  own  grounds,  and  for  our  own  interests ;  and  to  sug- 
gest to  that  government,  acting  on  its  own  ground,  and  for  ita 
own  interests,  the  propriety  of  following  a  similar  course.  Here, 
Sir,  is  no  alliance,  nor  even  any  cooperation. 

So,  again,  as  to  the  correspondence  which  refers  to  the  appear- 
ance of  the  French  fleet  in  the  West  India  seas.  Be  it  remem- 
bered that  our  government  was  contending,  in  the  course  of  this 
correspondence  with  Mexico,  for  an  equality  in  matters  of  com- 
merce. It  insisted  on  being  placed,  in  this  respect,  on  the  same 
footing  as  the  other  Spanish  American  states.  To  enforce  this 
claim,  our  known  friendly  sentiments  towards  Mexico,  as  well 
as  to  the  rest  of  the  new  states,  were  suggested,  and  properly 
suggested.  Mexico  was  reminded  of  the  timely  declaration 
which  had  been  made  of  these  sentiments.  She  was  reminded 
that  she  herself  had  been  well  inclined  to  claim  the  benefit  re- 
sulting from  that  declaration,  when  a  French  fleet  appeared  in 
the  neighboring  seas ;  and  she  was  referred  to  the  course  adopted 
by  our  government  on  that  occasion,  with  an  intimation  that 
she  might  learn  from  it  how  the  same  government  would  have 
acted  if  other  possible  contingencies  had  happened.  What  is 
there  in  all  this  of  any  renewed  pledge,  or  what  is  there  of  any 
thing  beyond  the  true  line  of  our  policy  ?  Do  gentlemen  mean 
to  say  that  the  communication  made  to  France,  on  this  occasion, 
was  improper?  Do  they  mean  to  repel  and  repudiate  that 
declaration  ?  That  declaration  was,  that  we  could  not  see  Cuba 
transferred  from  Spain  to  another  European  power.  If  the 
House  mean  to  contradict  that,  be  it  so.  If  it  do  not,  then,  as 
the  government  had  acted  properly  in  this  case,  it  did  furnish 
ground  to  believe  it  would  act  properly,  also,  in  other  cases,  when 
they  arose.  And  the  reference  to  this  incident  or  occurrence  by 
the  Secretary  was  pertinent  to  the  argument  which  he  v«ras 
pressing  on  the  Mexican  government. 

I  have  but  a  word  to  say  on  the  subject  of  the  declaration 
against  European  colonization  in  America.  The  late  Presiden. 
seems  to  have  thought  the  occasion  used  by  him  for  that  pur- 
pose to  be  a  proper  one  for  the  open  avowal  of  a  principle  which 
had  already  been  acted  on.  Great  and  practical  inconveniences, 
it  was  feared,  might  be  apprehended  from  the  establishment  of 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  207 

new  colonies  in  America,  having  a  European  origin  and  a  Eu- 
ropean connection.  Attempts  of  that  kind,  it  was  obvious, 
might  possibly  be  made,  amidst  the  changes  that  were  taking 
place  in  Mexico,  as  well  as  in  the  more  southern  states.  Mex- 
ico bounds  us,  on  a  vast  length  of  line,  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  There  are  many  reasons  why  it  should 
not  be  desired  by  us,  that  an  establishment,  under  the  protection 
of  a  different  power,  should  occupy  any  portion  of  that  space. 
We  have  a  general  interest,  that,  through  all  the  vast  territories 
rescued  from  the  dominion  of  Spain,  our  commerce  may  find  its 
way,  protected  by  treaties  with  governments  existing  on  the 
spot.  These  views,  and  others  of  a  similar  character,  rendered 
it  highly  desirable  to  us,  that  these  new  states  should  settle  it, 
as  a  part  of  their  policy,  not  to  allow  colonization  within  their 
respective  territories.  True,  indeed,  we  did  not  need  their  aid 
to  assist  us  in  maintaining  such  a  course  for  ourselves ;  but  we 
had  an  interest  in  their  assertion  and  support  of  the  principle  as 
applicable  to  their  own  territories. 

I  now  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  a  few  remarks  on  the  subject 
of  Cuba,  the  most  important  point  of  our  foreign  relations.  It 
is  the  hinge  on  which  interesting  events  may  possibly  turn.  I 
pray  gentlemen  to  review  their  opinions  on  this  subject  before 
they  fully  commit  themselves.  I  understood  the  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina  to  say,  that  if  Spain  chose  to 
transfer  this  island  to  any  power  in  Europe,  she  had  a  right  to 
do  so,  and  we  could  not  interfere  to  prevent  it.  Sir,  this  is  a 
delicate  subject  I  hardly  feel  competent  to  treat  it  as  it  de- 
serves ;  and  I  am  not  quite  willing  to  state  here  all  that  1  think 
about  it.  I  must,  however,  dissent  from  the  opinion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  South  Carolina.  The  rights  of  nations,  on  subjects 
of  this  kind,  are  necessarily  very  much  modified  by  circumstances. 
Because  England  or  France  could  not  rightfully  complain  of  the 
transfer  of  Florida  to  us,  it  by  no  means  follows,  as  the  gentle- 
man supposes,  that  we  could  not  complain  of  the  cession  of  Cu- 
ba to  one  of  them.  The  plain  difference  is,  that  the  transfer  of 
Florida  to  us  was  not  dangerous  to  the  safety  of  either  of  those 
nations,  nor  fatal  to  any  of  their  great  and  essential  interests. 
Proximity  of  position,  neighborhood,  whatever  augments  the 
power  of  injuring  and  annoying,  very  properly  belong  to  the  con- 
sideration of  all  cases  of  this  kind.  The  greater  or  less  facility 


208  THE   PANAMA   MISSION. 

of  access  itself  is  of  consideration  in  such  questions,  because  it 
brings,  or  may  bring,  weighty  consequences  with  it.  It  justifies, 
for  these  reasons  and  on  these  grounds,  what  otherwise  might 
never  be  thought  of.  By  negotiation  with  a  foreign  power,  Mr. 
Jefferson  obtained  a  province.  Without  any  alteration  of  our 
Constitution,  we  have  made  it  part  of  the  United  States,  and  its 
Senators  and  Representatives,  now  coming  from  several  States, 
are  here  among  us.  Now,  Sir,  if,  instead  of  being  Louisiana, 
this  had  been  one  of  the  provinces  of  Spain  proper,  or  one  of  her 
South  American  colonies,  he  must  have  been  a  madman  that 
should  have  proposed  such  an  acquisition.  A  high  conviction  of 
its  convenience,  arising,  from  proximity  and  from  close  natural 
connection,  alone  reconciled  the  country  to  the  measure.  Con- 
siderations of  the  same  sort  have  weight  in  other  cases. 

An  honorable  member  from  Kentucky  *  argues,  that  although 
we  might  rightfully  prevent  another  power  from  taking  Cuba 
from  Spain  by  force,  yet,  if  Spain  should  choose  to  make  the 
voluntary  transfer,  we  should  have  no  right  whatever  to  in- 
terfere. Sir,  this  is  a  distinction  without  a  difference.  If  we 
are  likely  to  have  contention  about  Cuba,  let  us  first  well  con- 
sider what  our  rights  are,  and  not  commit  ourselves.  •  And, 
Sir,  if  we  have  any  right  to  interfere  at  all,  it  applies  as  well  to 
the  case  of  a  peaceable  as  to  that  of  a  forcible  transfer.  If  na- 
tions be  at  war,  we  are  not  judges  of  the  question  of  right  in 
that  war;  we  must  acknowledge  in  both  parties  the  mutual 
right  of  attack  and  the  mutual  right  of  conquest.  It  is  not  for 
us  to  set  bounds  to  their  belligerent  operations  so  long  as  they 
do  not  affect  ourselves.  Our  right  to  interfere  in  any  such  case 
is  but  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  reasonable  and  necessary  self- 
defence.  It  is  a  high  and  delicate  exercise  of  that  right;  one 
not  to  be  made  but  on  grounds  of  strong  and  manifest  reason^ 
justice,  and  necessity.  The  real  question  is,  whether  the  posses- 
sion of  Cuba  by  a  great  maritime  power  of  Europe  would  seri- 
ously endanger  our  own  immediate  security  or  our  essential  in- 
terests. I  put  the  question,  Sir,  in  the  language  of  some  of  the 
best  considered  state  papers  of  modern  times.  The  general  rule 
of  national  law  is,  unquestionably,  against  interference  in  the 
transactions  of  other  states.  There  are,  however,  acknowledged 

*  Mr.  Wickliffe. 


THE   PANAMA   MISSION.  209 

exceptions,  growing  out  of  circumstances  and  founded  in  those 
circumstances.  These  exceptions,  it  has  been  properly  said, 
cannot  without  danger  be  reduced  to  previous  rule,  and  incor- 
porated into  the  ordinary  diplomacy  of  nations.  Nevertheless, 
they  do  exist,  and  must  be  judged  of,  when  they  arise,  with  a 
just  regard  to.  our  own  essential  interests,  but  in  a  spirit  of  strict 
justice  and  delicacy  also  towards  foreign  states. 

The  ground  of  these  exceptions  is,  as  I  have  already  stated, 
self-preservation.  It  is  not  a  slight  injury  to  our  interest,  it  is 
not  even  a  great  inconvenience,  that  makes  out  a  case.  There 
must  be  danger  to  our  security,  or  danger,  manifest  and  immi- 
nent danger,  to  our  essential  rights  and  our  essential  interests. 
Now,  Sir,  let  us  look  at  Cuba.  I  need  hardly  refer  to  its  pres- 
ent amount  of  commercial  connection  with  the  United  States. 
Our  statistical  tables,  I  presume,  would  show  us  that  our  com- 
merce with  the  Havana  alone  is  more  in  amount  than  our  whole 
commercial  intercourse  with  France  and  all  her  dependencies. 
But  this  is  but  one  part  of  the  case,  and  not  the  most  important. 
Cuba,  as  is  well  said  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  is  placed  in  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  Its  occupa- 
tion by  a  strong  maritime  power  would  be  felt,  in  the  first  mo- 
ment of  hostility,  as  far  up  the  Mississippi  and  the  Missouri  as 
our  population  extends.  It  is  the  commanding  point  of  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico.  See,  too,  how  it  lies  in  the  very  line  of  our 
coastwise  traffic;  interposed  in  the  very  highway  between 
New  York  and  New  Orleans. 

Now,  Sir,  who  has  estimated,  or  who  can  estimate,  the  effect 
of  a  change  which  should  place  this  island  in  other  hands,  sub- 
ject it  to  new  rules  of  commercial  intercourse,  or  connect  it  with 
objects  of  a  different  and  still  more  dangerous  nature?  Sir,  I 
repeat  that  I  feel  no  disposition  to  pursue  this  topic  on  the  pres- 
ent occasion.  My  purpose  is  only  to  show  its  importance,  and 
to  beg  gentlemen  not  to  prejudice  any  rights  of  the  country  by 
assenting  to  propositions,  which,  perhaps,  it  may  be  necessary 
hereafter  to  review. 

And  here  I  differ  again  with  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky 
He  thinks,  that,  in  this  as  in  other  cases,  we  should  wait  till  the 
event  comes,  without  any  previous  declaration  of  our  sentiment? 
upon  subjects  important  to  our  own' rights  or  our  own  interests 
Sir,  such  declarations  are  often  the  appropriate  means  of  pre- 
18* 


210  THE  PANAMA   MISSION. 

venting  that  which,  if  unprevented,  it  might  be  difficult  to  re- 
dress. A  great  object  in  holding  diplomatic  intercourse  is 
frankly  to  expose  the  views  and  objects  of  nations,  and  to  pre- 
vent, by  candid  explanation,  collision  and  war.  In  this  case, 
the  government  had  said  that  we  could  not  assent  to  the  trans- 
fer of  Cuba  to  another  European  state.  Can  we  so  assent  ? 
Do  gentlemen  think  we  can  ?  If  not,  then  it  was  entirely  proper 
that  this  intimation  should  be  frankly  and  seasonably  made. 
Candor  required  it ;  and  it  would  have  been  unpardonable,  it 
would  have  been  injustice,  as  well  as  folly,  to  be  silent  while 
we  might  suppose  the  transaction  to  be  contemplated,  and 
then  to  complain  of  it  afterwards.  If  we  should  have  a  sub- 
sequent right  to  complain,  we  have  a  previous  right,  equally 
clear,  of  protesting;  and  if  the  evil  be  one  which,  when  it 
comes,  would  allow  us  to  apply  a  remedy,  it  not  only  allows 
us,  but  it  makes  it  our  duty,  also  to  apply  prevention. 

But,  Sir,  while  some  gentlemen  have  maintained  that  on  the 
subject  of  a  transfer  to  any  of  the  European  powers  the  Presi- 
dent has  said  too  much,  others  insist  that  on  that  of  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  island  by  Mexico  or  Colombia  he  has  said  and  done 
too  little.  I  presume,  Sir,  for  my  own  part,  that  the  strongest 
language  has  been  directed  to  the  source  of  greatest  danger. 
Heretofore  that  danger  was,  doubtless,  greatest  which  was  ap- 
prehended from  a  voluntary  transfer.  The  other  has  been  met 
as  it  arose ;  and,  thus  far,  adequately  and  sufficiently  met. 

And  here,  Sir,  I  cannot  but  say  that  I  never  knew  a  more  ex- 
traordinary argument  than  we  have  heard  on  the  conduct  of  the 
executive  on  this  part  of  the  case.  The  President  is  charged 
with  inconsistency;  and  in  order  to  make  this  out,  public  de- 
spatches are  read,  which,  it  is  said,  militate  with  one  another. 

Sir,  what  are  the  facts  ?  This  government  saw  fit  to  invite 
the  Emperor  of  Russia  to  use  his  endeavors  to  bring  Spain  to 
treat  of  peace  with  her  revolted  colonies.  Russia  was  addressed 
on  this  occasion  as  the  friend  of  Spain ;  and,  of  course,  every  ar- 
gument which  it  was  thought  might  have  influence,  or  ought  to 
have  influence,  either  on  Russia  or  Spain,  was  suggested  in  the 
correspondence.  Among  other  things,  the  probable  loss  to  Spain 
of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  was  urged ;  and  the  question  was 
asked,  how  it  was  or  could  be  expected  by  Spain,  that  the 
United  States  should  interfere  to  prevent  Mexico  and  Colombia 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  211 

from  taking  those  islands  from  her,  since  she  was  their  enemy, 
in  a  public  war,  and  since  she  pertinaciously,  and  unreasonably, 
as  we  think,  insists  on  maintaining  the  war;  and  since  these 
islands  offered  an  obvious  object  of  attack.  Was  not  this,  Sir, 
a  very  proper  argument  to  be  urged  to  Spain  ?  A  copy  of  this 
despatch,  it  seems,  was  sent  to  the  Senate  in  confidence.  It  has 
not  been  published  by  the  executive.  Now,  the  alleged  incon- 
sistency is,  that,  notwithstanding  this  letter,  the  President  has 
interfered  to  dissuade  Mexico  and  Colombia  from  attacking 
Cuba ;  that,  finding  or  thinking  that  those  states  meditated  such 
a  purpose,  this  government  has  urged  them  to  desist  from  it. 
Sir,  was  ever  any  thing  more  unreasonable  than  this  charge? 
Was  it  not  proper,  that,  to  produce  the  desired  result  of  peace, 
our  government  should  address  different  motives  to  the  different 
parties  in  the  war?  Was  it  not  its  business  to  set  before  each 
party  its  dangers  and  its  difficulties  in  pursuing  the  war  ?  And 
if  now,  by  any  thing  unexpected,  these  respective  correspond- 
ences have  become  public,  are  these  different  views,  addressed 
thus  to  different  parties  and  with  different  objects,  to  be  relied  on 
as  proof  of  inconsistency  ?  It  is  the  strangest  accusation  ever 
heard  of.  No  government  not  wholly  destitute  of  common 
sense  would  have  acted  otherwise.  We  urged  the  proper  mo- 
tives to  both  parties.  To  Spain  we  urged  the  probable  loss  of 
Cuba ;  we  showed  her  the  dangers  of  its  capture  by  the  new 
states ;  and  we  asked  her  to  inform  us  on  what  ground  it  was 
that  we  could  interfere  to  prevent  such  capture,  since  she  was  at 
war  with  those  states,  and  they  had  an  unquestionable  right  to 
attack  her  in  any  of  her  territories;  and,  especially,  she  was 
asked  how  she  could  expect  good  offices  from  us  on  this  occa- 
sion, since  she  fully  understood  our  opinion  to  be  that  she  was 
persisting  in  the  war  without  or  beyond  all  reason,  and  with  a 
sort  of  desperation.  This  was  the  appeal  made  to  the  good 
sense  of  Spain,  through  Russia.  But  soon  afterwards,  having 
reason  to  suspect  that  Colombia  and  Mexico  were  actually  pre- 
paring to  attack  Cuba,  and  knowing  that  such  an  event  would 
most  seriously  affect  us,  our  government  remonstrated  against 
such  meditated  attack,  and  to  the  present  time  it  has  not  been 
made.  In  all  this,  who  sees  any  thing  either  improper  or  incon- 
sistent ?  For  myself,  I  think  that  the  course  pursued  showed  a 
watchful  regard  to  our  own  interest,  and  is  wholly  free  from  any 
imputation  either  of  impropriety  or  inconsistency. 


212  THE   PANAMA  MISSION. 

There   are   other  subjects,   Sir,  in  the  President's   message,  * 
which  have  been  discussed  in  the  debate,  but  on  which  I  shall 
not  long  detain  the  committee. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that,  from  the  commencement  of  our  gov- 
ernment, it  has  been  its  object  to  improve  and  simplify  the  prin- 
ciples of  national  intercourse.  It  may  well  be  thought  a  fit  oc- 
casion to  urge  these  improved  principles  at  a  moment  when  so 
many  new  states  are  coming  into  existence,  untrammelled,  of 
course,  with  previous  and  long-established  connections  or  habits. 
Some  hopes  of  benefit  connected  with  these  topics  are  suggest- 
ed in  the  message. 

The  abolition  of  private  war  on  the  ocean  is  also  among  the 
subjects  of  possible  consideration.  This  is  not  the  first  time 
that  that  subject  has  been  mentioned.  The  late  President  took 
occasion  to  enforce  the  considerations  which  he  thought  recom- 
mended it.  For  one,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  how  far  such 
abolition  may  be  practicable,  or  how  far  it  ought  to  be  pursued ; 
but  there  are  views  belonging  to  the  subject  which  have  not 
been,  in  any  degree,  answered  or  considered  in  this  discussion. 
It  is  not  always  the  party  that  has  the  power  of  employing  the 
largest  military  marine  that  derives  the  greatest  benefit  from 
authorizing  privateers  in  war.  It  is  not  enough  that  there  are 
brave  and  gallant  captors ;  there  must  be  something  to  be  cap- 
tured. Suppose,  Sir,  a  war  between  ourselves  and  any  one  of 
the  new  states  of  South  America  were  now  existing,  who  would 
lose  most  by  the  practice  of  privateering  in  such  a  war  ?  There 
would  be  nothing  for  us  to  attack,  while  the  means  of  attacking 
us  would  flow  to  our  enemies  from  every  part  of  the  world. 
Capital,  ships,  and  men  would  be  abundant  in  all  their  ports, 
and  OUT  commerce,  spread  over  every  sea,  would  be  the  destined 
prey.  So,  again,  if  war  should  unhappily  spring  up  among 
those  states  themselves,  might  it  not  be  for  our  interest,  as  being 
likely  to  be  much  connected  by  intercourse  with  all  parties,  that 
our  commerce  should  be  free  from  the  visitation  and  search  of 
private  armed  ships,  one  of  the  greatest  vexations  to  neutral 
commerce  in  time  of  war  ?  These,  Sir,  are  some  of  the  consid- 
erations belonging  to  this  subject.  I  have  mentioned  them  only 
to  show  that  they  well  deserve  serious  attention. 

I  have  not  intended  to  reply  to  the  uiany  observations  which 
have  been  submitted  to  us  on  the  message  of  the  President  to 


THE   PANAMA   MISSION.  213 

this  House,  or  that  to  the  Senate.  Certainly  I  am  of  opinion, 
that  some  of  those  observations  merited  an  answer,  and  they 
have  been  answered  by  others.  On  two  points  only  will  I  make 
a  remark.  It  has  been  said,  and  often  repeated,  that  the  Presi- 
dent, in  his  message  to  the  Senate,  has  spoken  of  his  own  power 
in  regard  to  missions  in  terms  which  the  Constitution  does  not 
warrant.  If  gentlemen  will  turn  to  the  message  of  President 
Washington  relative  to  the  mission  to  Lisbon,*  they  will  see  al- 
most the  exact  form  of  expression  used  in  this  case.  The  other 
point  on  which  I  would  make  a  remark  is  the  allegation  that  an 
unfair  use  has  been  made,  in  the  argument  of  the  message,  of 
General  Washington's  Farewell  Address.  There  would  be  no 
end,  Sir,  to  comments  and  criticisms  of  this  sort  if  they  were  to 
be  pursued.  I  only  observe,  that,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the  argu- 
ment of  the  message,  and  its  use  of  the  Farewell  Address,  are 
not  fairly  understood.  It  is  not  attempted  to  be  inferred  from 
the  Farewell  Address,  that,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Wash- 
ington, we  ought  now  to  have  alliances  with  foreign  states.  No 
such  thing.  The  Farewell  Address  recommends  to  us  to  ab- 
stain as  much  as  possible  from  all  sorts  of  political  connection 
with  the  states  of  Europe,  alleging  as  the  reason  for  this  advice, 
that  Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests  of  her  own,  separate 
from  ours,  and  with  which  we  have  no  natural  connection.  Now 
the  message  argues,  and  argues  truly,  that,  the  new  South  Amer- 
ican states  not  having  a  set  of  interests  of  their  own,  growing 
out  of  the  balance  of  power,  family  alliances,  and  other  similar 
causes,  separate  from  ours,  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the  same 
degree  as  the  primary  interests  of  Europe  were  represented  to 
be,  this  part  of  the  Farewell  Address,  aimed  at  those  separate 
interests  expressly,  did  not  apply  in  this  case.  But  does  the 
message  infer  from  this  the  propriety  of  alliances  with  these  new 
states  ?  Far  from  it.  It  infers  no  such  thing.  On  the  contrary, 
it  disclaims  all  such  purpose. 

There  is  one  other  point,  Sir,  on  which  common  justice  re- 
quires a  word  to  be  said.  It  has  been  alleged  that  there  are 
material  differences  as  to  the  papers  sent  respectively  to  the  two 
houses.  All  this,  as  it  seems  to  me,  may  be  easily  and  satisfac- 
torily explained.  In  the  first  place,  the  instructions  of  May 

*  Sparks's  Washington,  Vol.  XII.  p.  92. 


214  THE    PANAMA  MISSION. 

182<),  wnich,  it  is  said,  were  not  sent  to  the  Senate,  were  in- 
structions on  which  a  treaty  had  been  already  negotiated; 
which  treaty  had  been  subsequently  ratified  by  the  Senate.  It 
may  be  presumed,  that,  when  the  treaty  was  sent  to  the  Senate, 
the  instructions  accompanied  it ;  and  if  so,  they  were  actually 
already  before  the  Senate ;  and  this  accounts  for  one  of  the  al- 
leged differences.  In  the  next  place,  the  letter  to  Mr.  Middleton, 
in  Russia,  not  sent  to  the  House,  but  now  published  by  the 
Senate,  is  such  a  paper  as  possibly  the  President  might  not  think 
proper  to  make  public.  There  is  evident  reason  for  such  an 
inference.  And,  lastly,  the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Brown,  sent 
here,  but  not  to  the  Senate,  appears  from  its  date  to  have  been 
received  after  the  communication  to  the  Senate.  Probably  when 
sent  to  us,  it  was  also  sent,  by  another  message,  to  that  body. 

These  observations,  Sir,  are  tedious  and  uninteresting.  I  am 
glad  to  be  through  with  them.  And  here  I  might  terminate  my 
remarks,  and  relieve  the  patience,  now  long  and  heavily  taxed, 
of  the  committee.  But  there  is  one  part  of  the  discussion,  on 
which  I  must  ask  to  be  indulged  with  a  few  observations. 

Pains,  Sir,  have  been  taken  by  the  honorable  member  from 
Virginia,  to  prove  that  the  measure  now  in  contemplation,  and, 
indeed,  the  whole  policy  of  the  government  respecting  South 
America,  is  the  unhappy  result  of  the  influence  of  a  gentleman 
formerly  filling  the  chair  of  this  House.  To  make  out  this,  he 
has  referred  to  certain  speeches  of  that  gentleman  delivered  here. 
He  charges  him  with  having  become  himself  affected  at  an  early 
day  with  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  the  South  American  fever ; 
and  with  having  infused  its  baneful  influence  into  the  whole 
counsels  of  the  country. 

If,  Sir,  it  be  true  that  that  gentleman,  prompted  by  an  ardent 
love  of  civil  liberty,  felt  earlier  than  others  a  proper  sympathy 
for  the  struggling  colonies  of  South  America ;  or  that,  acting  on 
the  maxim  that  revolutions  do  not  go  backward,  he  had  the 
sagacity  to  foresee,  earlier  than  others,  the  successful  termina- 
tion of  those  struggles ;  if,  thus  feeling,  and  thus  perceiving,  it 
fell  to  him  to  lead  the  willing  or  unwilling  counsels  of  his  coun- 
try, in  her  manifestations  of  kindness  to  the  new  governments, 
and  in  her  seasonable  recognition  of  their  independence,  —  if  it 
be  this  which  the  honorable  member  imputes  to  him,  if  it  be  by 
this  course  of  public  conduct  that  he  has  identified  his  name 


THE   PANAMA  MISSION  2M 

with  the  cause  of  South  American  liberty,  he  ought  to  be  es- 
teemed one  of  the  most  fortunate  men  of  the  age.  If  all  this  be 
as  is  now  represented,  he  has  acquired  fame  enough.  It  is 
enough  for  any  man  thus  to  have  connected  himself  with  the 
greatest  events  of  the  age  in  which  he  lives,  and  to  have  been 
foremost  in  measures  which  reflect  high  honor  on  his  country,  in 
the  judgment  of  mankind.  Sir,  it  is  always  with  great  reluc- 
tance that  I  am  drawn  to  speak,  in  my  place  here,  of  individu- 
als ;  but  I  could  not  forbear  what  I  have  now  said,  when  I  hear, 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  in  this  land  of  free  spirits, 
that  it  is  made  matter  of  imputation  and  of  reproach  to  have 
been  first  to  reach  forth  the  hand  of  welcome  and  of  succor  to 
new-born  nations,  struggling  to  obtain  and  to  enjoy  the  bless- 
ings of  liberty. 

We  are  told  that  the  country  is  deluded  and  deceived  by  cab- 
alistic words.  Cabalistic  words!  If  we  express  an  emotion  of 
pleasure  at  the  results  of  this  great  action  of  the  spirit  of  politi- 
cal liberty;  if  we  rejoice  at  the  birth  of  new  republican  na- 
tions, and  express  our  joy  by  the  common  terms  of  regard  and 
sympathy ;  if  we  feel  and  signify  high  gratification  that,  through- 
out this  whole  continent,  men  are  now  likely  to  be  blessed  by 
free  and  popular  institutions;  and  if,  in  the  uttering  of  these 
sentiments,  we  happen  to  speak  of  sister  republics,  of  the  great 
American  family  of  nations,  or  of  the  political  system  and  forms 
of  government  of  this  hemisphere,  then  indeed,  it  seems,  we  deal 
in  senseless  jargon,  or  impose  on  the  judgment  and  feeling  of 
the  community  by  cabalistic  words !  Sir,  what  is  meant  by 
this  ?  Is  it  intended  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  ought 
to  be  totally  indifferent  to  the  fortunes  of  these  new  neighbors  ? 
Is  no  change  in  the  lights  in  which  we  are  to  view  them  to 
be  wrought,  by  their  having  thrown  off  foreign  dominion,  estab- 
lished independence,  and  instituted  on  our  very  borders  repub- 
lican governments  essentially  after  our  own  example  ? 

Sir,  I  do  not  wish  to  overrate,  I  do  not  overrate,  the  progress 
of  these  new  states  in  the  great  work  of  establishing  a  well- 
secured  popular  liberty.  I  know  that  to  be  a  great  attainment, 
and  I  know  they  are  but  pupils  in  the  school.  But,  thank  God, 
they  are  in  the  school.  They  are  called  to  meet  difficulties  such 
as  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  encountered.  For  these  we  ought 
to  make  Jarge  allowances.  What  have  we  ever  known  like  the 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

colonial  vassalage  of  these  states?  When  did  we  or  our  an- 
cestors feel,  like  them,  the  weight  of  a  political  despotism  that 
presses  men  to  the  earth,  or  of  that  religious  intolerance  which 
would  shut  up  heaven  to  all  of  a  different  creed  ?  Sir,  we  sprung 
from  another  stock.  We  belong  to  another  race.  We  have 
known  nothing,  we  have  felt  nothing,  of  the  political  despotism 
of  Spain,  nor  of  the  heat  of  her  fires  of  intolerance.  No  rational 
man  expects  that  the  South  can  run  the  same  rapid  career  as 
the  North;  or  that  an  insurgent  province  of  Spain  is  in  the 
same  condition  as  the  English  colonies  when  they  first  asserted 
their  independence.  There  is,  doubtless,  much  more  to  be  done 
in  the  first  than  in  the  last  case.  But  on  that  account  the  honor 
of  the  attempt  is  not  less ;  and  if  all  difficulties  shall  be  in  time 
surmounted,  it  will  be  greater.  The  work  may  be  more  ardu- 
ous, it  is  not  less  noble,  because  there  may  be  more  of  igno- 
rance to  enlighten,  more  of  bigotry  to  subdue,  more  of  preju- 
dice to  eradicate.  If  it  be  a  weakness  to  feel  a  strong  interest  in 
the  success  of  these  great  revolutions,  I  confess  myself  guilty  of 
that  weakness.  If  it  be  weak  to  feel  that  I  am  an  American,  to 
think  that  recent  events  have  not  only  opened  new  modes  of  in- 
tercourse, but  have  created  also  new  grounds  of  regard  and  sym- 
pathy between  ourselves  and  our  neighbors ;  if  it  be  weak  to  feel 
that  the  South,  in  her  present  state,  is  somewhat  more  emphati- 
cally a  part  of  America  than  when  she  lay  obscure,  oppressed, 
and  unknown,  under  the  grinding  bondage  of  a  foreign  power ; 
if  it  be  weak  to  rejoice  when,  even  in  any  corner  of  the  earth, 
human  beings  are  able  to  rise  from  beneath  oppression,  to  erect 
themselves,  and  to  enjoy  the  proper  happiness  of  their  intelligent 
nature ;  —  if  this  be  weak,  it  is  a  weakness  from  which  I  claim 
no  exemption. 

A  day  of  solemn  retribution  now  visits  the  once  proud  mon- 
archy of  Spain.  The  prediction  is  fulfilled.  The  spirit  of  Mon- 
tezuma  and  of  the  Incas  might  now  well  say, — 

"  Art  thou,  too,  fallen,  Iberia?     Do  we  see 
The  robber  and  the  murderer  weak  as  we  ? 
Thou !  that  hast  wasted  earth  and  dared  despise 
Alike  the  wrath  and  mercy  of  the  skies, 
Thy  pomp  is  in  the  grave ;  thy  glory  laid 
Low  in  the  pits  thine  avarice  has  made."* 

Cowper's  Charity. 


THE  PANAMA  MISSION.  217 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  only  detain  you  with  one  more  reflec- 
tion on  this  subject.  We  cannot  be  so  blind,  we  cannot  so  shut 
up  our  senses  and  smother  our  faculties,  as  not  to  see,  that,  in 
the  progress  and  the  establishment  of  South  American  liberty, 
our  own  example  has  been  among  the  most  stimulating  causes. 
In  their  emergencies,  they  have  looked  to  our  experience;  in 
their  political  institutions,  they  have  followed  our  models;  in 
their  deliberations,  they  have  invoked  the  presiding  spirit  of  our 
own  liberty.  They  have  looked  steadily,  in  every  adversity,  to 
the  great  Northern  light.  In  the  hour  of  bloody  conflict,  they 
have  remembered  the  fields  which  have  been  consecrated  by  the 
blood  of  our  own  fathers ;  and  when  they  have  fallen,  they  have 
wished  only  to  be  remembered  with  them,  as  men  who  had 
acted  their  parts  bravely  for  the  cause  of  liberty  in  the  Western 
World. 

Sir,  I  have  done.  If  it  be  weakness  to  feel  the  sympathy  of 
one's  nature  excited  for  such  men,  in  such  a  cause,  I  am  guilty 
of  that  weakness.  If  it  be  prudence  to  meet  their  proffered 
civility,  not  with  reciprocal  kindness,  but  with  coldness  or  with 
insult,  I  choose  still  to  follow  where  natural  impulse  leads,  and 
to  give  up  that  false  and  mistaken  prudence  for  the  voluntary 
sentiments  of  my  heart. 


VOL.    III.  19 


REVOLUTIONARY   OFFICERS/ 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  It  has  not  been  my  purpose  to  take  any 
part  in  the  discussion  of  this  bill.  My  opinions  in  regard  to  its 
general  object,  I  hope,  are  well  known ;  and  I  had  intended  to 
content  myself  with  a  steady  and  persevering  vote  in  its  favor. 
But  when  the  moment  of  final  decision  has  come,  and  the  divis- 
ion is  so  likely  to  be  nearly  equal,  I  feel  it  to  be  a  duty  to  put, 
not  only  my  own  vote,  but  my  own  earnest  wishes  also,  and 
my  fervent  entreaties  to  others,  into  the  doubtful  scale. 

It  must  be  admitted,  Sir,  that  the  persons  for  whose  benefit 
this  bill  is  designed  are,  in  some  respects,  peculiarly  unfortunate. 
They  are  compelled  to  meet  not  only  objections  to  the  principle, 
but,  whichever  way  they  turn  themselves,  embarrassing  objec- 
tions also  to  details.  One  friend  hesitates  at  this  provision,  and 
another  at  that ;  while  those  who  are  not  friends  at  all  of  course 
oppose  every  thing,  and  propose  nothing.  When  it  was  con- 
templated, heretofore,  to  give  the  petitioners  a  sum  outright  in 
satisfaction  of  their  claim,  then  the  argument  was,  among  other 
things,  that  the  treasury  could  not  bear  so  heavy  a  draught  on 
its  means  at  the  present  moment.  The  plan  is  accordingly 
changed;  an  annuity  is  proposed ;  and  then  the  objection  changes 
also.  It  is  now  said,  that  this  is  but  granting  pensions,  and  that 
the  pension  system  has  already  been  carried  too  far.  I  confess, 
Sir,  I  felt  wounded,  deeply  hurt,  at  the  observations  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Georgia.  "  So,  then,"  said  he,  "  these  modest  and 
high-minded  gentlemen  take  a  pension  at  last ! "  How  is  it  pos- 
sible that  a  gentleman  of  his  generosity  of  character,  and  gen- 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  25th  of 
April,  1828,  on  the  Bill  for  the  Relief  of  the  Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revo- 
ution. 


REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS.  219 

eral  kindness  of  feeling,  can  indulge  in  such  a  tone  of  trium- 
phant irony  towards  a  few  old,  gray-headed,  poor,  and  broken 
warriors  of  the  Revolution !  There  is,  I  know,  something  repul- 
sive and  opprobrious  in  the  name  of  pension.  But  God  forbid 
that  I  should  taunt  them  with  it!  With  grief,  heart-felt  grief, 
do  I  behold  the  necessity  which  leads  these  veterans  to  accept  the 
bounty  of  their  country,  in  a  manner  not  the  most  agreeable  to 
their  feelings.  Worn  out  and  decrepit,  represented  before  us  by 
those,  their  former  brothers  in  arms,  who  totter  along  our  lob- 
bies, or  stand  leaning  on  their  crutches,  I,  for  one,  would  most 
gladly  support  such  a  measure  as  should  consult  at  once  their 
services,  their  years,  their  necessities,  and  the  delicacy  of  their 
sentiments.  I  would  gladly  give,  with  promptitude  and  grace, 
with  gratitude  and  delicacy,  that  which  merit  has  earned  and 
necessity  demands. 

Sir,  what  are  the  objections  urged  against  this  bill  ?  Let  us 
look  at  them,  and  see  if  they  be  real;  let  us  weigh  them,  to 
know  if  they  be  solid ;  for  we  are  not  acting  on  a  slight  matter, 
nor  is  what  we  do  likely  to  pass  unobserved  now,  or  to  be  for- 
gotten hereafter.  I  regard  the  occasion  as  one  full  of  interest 
and  full  of  responsibility.  Those  individuals,  the  little  remnant 
of  a  gallant  band,  whose  days  of  youth  and  manhood  were 
spent  for  their  country  in  the  toils  and  dangers  of  the  field,  are 
now  before  us,  poor  and  old,  —  intimating  their  wants  with  re- 
luctant delicacy,  and  asking  succor  from  their  country  with  dec- 
orous solicitude.  How  we  shall  treat  them  it  behooves  us  well 
to  consider,  not  only  for  their  sake,  but  for  our  own  sake  also, 
and  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  of  the'country.  Whatever  we  do 
will  not  be  done  in  a  corner.  Our  constituents  will  see  it ;  the 
people  will  see  it ;  the  world  will  see  it 

Let  us  candidly  examine,  then,  the  objections  which  have 
been  raised  to  this  bill,  with  a  disposition  to  yield  to  them,  if 
from  necessity  we  must,  but  to  overcome  them,  if  in  fairness 
we  can. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  said  that  we  ought  not  to  pass  the  bill, 
because  it  will  involve  us  in  a  charge  of  unknown  extent.  We 
are  reminded,  that,  when  the  general  pension  law  for  Revolution- 
ary soldiers  passed,  an  expense  was  incurred  far  beyond  what 
had  been  contemplated;  that  the  estimate  of  the  number  of 
surviving  Revolutionary  soldiers  proved  altogether  fallacious ; 


220  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS. 

and  that,  for  aught  we  know,  the  same  mistake  may  be  commit- 
ted now. 

Is  this  objection  well  founded  ?  Let  me  say,  in  the  first  place, 
that  if  one  measure,  right  in  itself,  has  gone  farther  than  it  was 
intended  to  be  carried,  for  want  of  accurate  provisions  and  ade- 
quate guards,  this  may  furnish  a  very  good  reason  for  supplying 
such  guards  and  provisions  in  another  measure,  but  can  afford 
no  ground  at  all  for  rejecting  such  other  measure  altogether,  if 
it  be  in  itself  just  and  reasonable.  We  should  avail  ourselves 
of  our  experience,  it  seems  to  me,  to  correct  what  has  been  found 
amiss ;  and  not  draw  from  it  an  undistinguishing  resolution  to  do 
nothing,  merely  because  it  has  taught  us,  that,  in  something  we 
have  already  done,  we  have  acted  with  too  little  care.  In  the 
next  place,  does  the  fact  bear  out  this  objection  ?  Is  there  any 
difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  number  of  the  officers  who  will  be 
benefited  by  this  bill,  and  in  estimating  the  expense,  therefore, 
which  it  will  create?  I  think  there  is  none.  The  records  in 
the  department  of  war  and  the  treasury  furnish  such  evidence 
that  there  is  no  danger  of  material  mistake.  The  diligence  of 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  has  enabled  him  to  lay  the  facts 
connected  with  this  part  of  the  case  so  fully  and  minutely  before 
the  Senate,  that  I  think  no  one  can  feel  serious  doubt.  Indeed, 
it  is  admitted  by  the  adversaries  of  the  bill,  that  this  objection 
does  not  apply  here  with  the  same  force  as  in  the  former  pen- 
sion-law. It  is  admitted  that  there  is  a  greater  facility  in  this 
case  than  in  that,  in  ascertaining  the  number  and  names  of  those 
who  will  be  entitled  to  receive  that  bounty. 

This  objection,  then,  is  no't  founded  in  true  principle ;  and  if  it 
were,  it  is  not  sustained  by  the  facts.  I  think  we  ought  not  to 
yield  to  it,  unless,  (which  I  know  is  not  the  sentiment  which  per- 
vades the  Senate,)  feeling  that  the  measure  ought  not  to  pass, 
we  still  prefer  not  to  place  our  opposition  to  it  on  a  distinct 
and  visible  ground,  but  to  veil  it  under  vague  and  general  objec- 
tions. 

In  the  second  place,  it  has  been  objected  that  the  operation 
of  the  bill  will  be  unequal,  because  all  officers  of  the  same  rank 
will  receive  equal  benefit  from  it,  although  they  entered  the  army 
at  different  times,  and  were  of  different  ages.  Sir,  is  not  this 
that  sort  of  inequality  which  must  always  exist  in  every  general 
provision.  Is  it  possible  that  any  law  can  descend  into  such  par- 


REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS.  221 

ticulars  ?  Would  there  be  any  reason  why  it  should  do  so,  if 
it  could  ?  The  bill  is  intended  for  those  who,  being  in  the  army 
in  October,  1780,  then  received  a  solemn  promise  of  half-pay 
for  life,  on  condition  that  they  would  continue  to  serve  through 
the  war.  Their  ground  of  merit  is,  that,  whensoever  they  joined 
the  army,  being  thus  solicited  by  their  country  to  remain  in  it, 
they  at  once  went  for  the  whole ;  they  fastened  their  fortunes 
to  the  standards  which  they  bore,  and  resolved  to  continue  their 
nilitary  service  till  it  should  terminate  either  in  their  country's 
success  or  in  their  own  death.  This  is  their  merit  and  their 
ground  of  claim.  How  long  they  had  been  already  in  service, 
is  immaterial  and  unimportant.  They  were  then  in  service;  the 
salvation  of  their  country  depended  on  their  continuing  in  that 
service.  Congress  saw  this  imperative  necessity,  and  earnestly 
solicited  them  to  remain,  and  promised  the  compensation.  They 
saw  the  necessity  also,  and  they  yielded  to  it 

But,  again,  it  is  said  that  the  present  time  is  not  auspicious. 
The  bill,  it  is  urged,  should  not  pass  now.  The  venerable  mem- 
oer  from  North  Carolina  says,  as  I  understood  him,  that  he 
would  be  almost  as  willing  that  the  bill  should  pass  at  some 
other  session,  as  be  discussed  at  this.  He  speaks  of  the  dis- 
tresses of  the  country  at  the  present  moment,  and  of  another 
bill,  now  in  the  Senate,  having,  as  he  thinks,  the  effect  of  laying 
new  taxes  upon  the  people.  He  is  for  postponement.  But  it 
appears  to  me,  with  entire  respect  for  the  honorable  member, 
that  this  is  one  of  the  cases  least  of  all  fit  for  postponement. 
It  is  not  a  measure  that,  if  omitted  this  year,  may  as  well  be 
done  next.  Before  the  next  year  comes,  some  of  those  who 
need  the  relief  may  be  beyond  its  reach.  To  postpone  for  an- 
other year  an  annuity  to  persons  already  so  aged,  —  an  annuity 
founded  on  the  merit  of  services  which  were  rendered  half  a 
century  ago,  —  to  postpone  to  another  whole  year  a  bill  for  the 
relief  of  deserving  men,  —  proposing,  not  aggrandizement,  but 
support,  not  emolument,  but  bread,  —  is  a  mode  of  disposing  of 
it  in  which  I  cannot  concur. 

But  it  is  argued,  in  the  next  place,  that  the  bill  ought  not  to 
pass,  because  those  who  have  spoken  in  its  favor  have  placed  it 
on  different  grounds.  They  have  not  agreed,  it  is  said,  whether 
it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  right,  or  matter  of  gratuity, 
or  bounty.  Is  there  weight  in  this  objection  ?  If  some  think 
19* 


222  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS. 

the  grant  ought  to  be  made,  as  an  exercise  of  judicious  and 
well-deserved  bounty,  does  it  weaken  that  ground  that  others 
think  it  founded  in  strict  right,  and  that  we  cannot  refuse  it 
without  manifest  and  palpable  injustice  ?  Or  is  it  strange  that 
those  who  feel  the  legal  justice  of  the  claim  should  address  to 
those  who  do  not  feel  it  considerations  of  a  different  character, 
but  fit  to  have  weight,  and  which  they  hope  may  have  weight  ? 
Nothing  is  more  plain  and  natural  than  the  course  which  this 
application  has  taken.  The  applicants  themselves  have  placed 
it  on  the  ground  of  equity  and  law.  They  advert  to  the  resolve 
of  1780,  to  the  commutation  of  1783,  and  to  the  mode  of  fund- 
ing the  certificates.  They  stand  on  their  contract.  This  is 
perfectly  natural.  On  that  basis  they  can  present  the  argument 
themselves.  Of  what  is  required  by  justice  and  equity,  they 
may  reason,  even  in  their  own  case.  But  when  the  application 
is  placed  on  different  grounds;  when  personal  merit  is  to  be 
urged  as  the  foundation  of  a  just  and  economical  bounty ;  when 
services  are  to  be  mentioned,  privations  recounted,  pains 
enumerated,  and  wounds  and  scars  referred  to,  the  discussion 
necessarily  devolves  upon  others.  In  all  that  we  have  seen 
from  these  officers  in  the  various  papers  presented  by  them,  it 
cannot  but  be  obvious  to  every  one  how  little  is  said  of  per- 
sonal merit,  and  how  exclusively  they  confine  themselves  to 
what  they  think  their  rights  under  the  contract. 

I  must  confess,  Sir,  that  principles  of  equity,  which  appear  to 
me  as  plain  as  the  sun,  are  urged  by  the  memorialists  them- 
selves with  great  caution,  and  much  qualification.  They  ad- 
vance their  claim  of  right  without  extravagance  or  overstrain- 
ing; and  they  submit  to  it  the  unimpassioned  sense  of  justice 
of  the  Senate. 

For  myself,  I  am  free  to  say,  that,  if  it  were  a  case  between 
individual  and  individual,  I  think  the  officers  would  be  entitled 
to  relief  in  a  court  of  equity.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  such  is 
my  opinion.  My  reasons  are,  that  I  do  not  think  they  had  * 
fair  option  in  regard  to  the  commutation  of  half-pay.  1  do  not 
think  it  was  fairly  in  their  power  to  accept  or  reject  that  offer 
The  condition  they  were  in,  and  the  situation  of  the  country, 
compelled  them  to  submit  to  whatever  was  proposed.  In  the 
next  place,  it  seems  to  me  too  evident  to  be  denied,  that  tire 
five  years'  full  pay  was  never  effectually  received  by  them.  A 


REVOLUTIONARY   OFFICERS.  223 

formal  compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  contract,  not  a  real 
compliance,  is  at  most  all  that  ever  took  place.  For  these  rea- 
sons, I  think,  in  an  individual  case,  law  and  equity  would 
reform  the  settlement.  The  conscience  of  chancery  would  deal 
with  this  case  as  with  other  cases  of  hard  bargains ;  of  advan- 
tages obtained  by  means  of  inequality  of  situation ;  of  acknowl- 
edged debts,  compounded  from  necessity,  or  compromised  with- 
out satisfaction.  But  although  such  would  be  my  views  of  this 
claim,  as  between  man  and  man,  I  do  not  place  my  vote  for  this 
bill  on  that  ground.  I  see  the  consequence  of  admitting  the 
claim,  on  the  foundation  of  strict  right.  I  see  at  once,  that,  on 
that  ground,  the  heirs  of  the  dead  would  claim,  as  well  as  the 
living ;  and  that  other  public  creditors,  as  well  as  these  holders 
of  commutation  certificates,  would  also  have  whereof  to  com- 
plain. I  know  it  is  altogether  impossible  to  open  the  accounts 
of  the  Revolution,  and  to  think  of  doing  justice  to  every  body. 
Much  of  suffering  there  necessarily  was,  that  can  never  be  paid 
for ;  much  of  loss  that  can  never  be  repaired.  I  do  not,  therefore, 
for  myself,  rest  my  vote  on  grounds  leading  to  any  such  conse- 
quences. I  feel  constrained  to  say,  that  we  cannot  do,  and 
ought  not  to  think  of  doing,  every  thing  in  regard  to  Revolu- 
tionary debts  which  might  be  desirable,  if  the  whole  settlement 
were  now  to  be  gone  over  anew. 

The  honorable  member  from  New  York  *  has  stated  what  I 
think  the  true  ground  of  the  bill.  I  regard  it  as  an  act  of  dis- 
creet and  careful  bounty,  drawn  forth  by  meritorious  services 
and  by  personal  necessities.  I  cannot  argue,  in  this  case,  with 
the  technicality  of  my  profession;  and  because  I  do  not  feel 
able  to  allow  the  claim  on  the  ground  of  mere  right,  I  am  not 
willing,  for  that  reason,  to  nonsuit  the  petitioners,  as  not  having 
made  out  their  case.  Suppose  we  admit,  as  I  do,  that,  on  the 
ground  of  mere  right,  it  would  not  be  safe  to  allow  it ;  or,  sup- 
pose that  to  be  admitted  for  which  others  contend,  that  there  is 
in  the  case  no  strict  right  upon  which  under  any  circumstances, 
the  claim  could  stand ;  still  it  does  not  follow  that  there  is  no 
reasonable  and  proper  foundation  for  it,  or  that  it  ought  not  to 
be  granted.  If  it  be  not  founded  on  strict  right,  it  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  being,  for  that  reason  alone,  an  undeserved  gratuity, 

*  Mr.  Van  Buren 


224  REVOLUTIONARY   OFFICERS. 

or  the  effusion  of  mere  good- will.  If  that  which  is  granted  be 
not  always  granted  on  the  ground  of  absolute  right,  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  is  granted  merely  from  an  arbitrary  preference,  or 
capricious  beneficence.  In  most  cases  of  this  sort,  mixed  con- 
siderations prevail,  and  ought  to  prevail.  Some  consideration  is 
due  to  the  claim  of  right;  much  to  that  of  merit  and  service; 
and  more  to  that  of  personal  necessity.  If  I  knew  that  all  the  per- 
sons to  be  benefited  by  this  bill  were  in  circumstances  of  comfort 
and  competency,  I  should  not  support  it.  But  this  I  know  to  be 
otherwise.  I  cannot  dwell  with  propriety  or  delicacy  on  this  part 
of  the  case ;  but  I  feel  its  force,  and  I  yield  to  it.  A  single  instance 
of  affluence,  or  a  few  cases  where  want  does  not  tread  close  on 
those  who  are  themselves  treading  close  on  the  borders  of  the 
grave,  does  not  affect  the  general  propriety  and  necessity  of  the 
measure.  I  would  not  draw  this  reason  for  the  bill  into  too 
much  prominence.  We  all  know  it  exists;  and  we  may,  I 
think,  safely  act  upon  it,  without  so  discussing  it  as  to  wound, 
in  old,  but  sensitive  and  still  throbbing  bosoms,  feelings  which 
education  inspired,  the  habits  of  military  life  cherished,  and  a 
just  self-respect  is  still  desirous  to  entertain.  I  confess  I  meet 
this  claim,  not  only  with  a  desire  to  do  something  in  favor  of 
these  officers,  but  to  do  it  in  a  manner  indicative,  not  only  of 
decorum,  but  of  deep  respect,  - —  that  respect  which  years,  age, 
public  service,  patriotism,  and  broken  fortune,  command  to  spring 
up  in  every  manly  breast. 

It  is,  then,  Sir,  a  mixed  claim  of  faith  and  public  gratitude, 
of  justice  and  honorable  bounty,  of  merit  and  benevolence.  It 
stands  on  the  same  foundation  as  that  grant,  which  no  one  re- 
grets, of  which  all  are  proud,  made  to  the  illustrious  foreigner, 
who  showed  himself  so  early,  and  has  proved  himself  so  con- 
stantly and  zealously,  a  friend  to  our  country. 

Then,  again,  it  is  objected,  that  the  militia  have  a  claim  upon 
us;  that  they  fought  at  the  side  of  the  regular  soldiers,  and 
ought  to  share  in  the  country's  remembrance.  But  it  is  known 
to  be  impossible  to  carry  the  measure  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
embrace  the  militia ;  and  it  is  plain,  too,  that  the  cases  are  dif- 
ferent. The  bill,  as  I  have  already  said,  confines  itself  to  those 
who  served  not  occasionally,  not  temporarily,  but  permanently; 
who  allowed  themselves  to  be  counted  on  as  men  who  were  to 
see  the  contest  through,  last  as  long  as  it  might ;  and  who  have 


REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS.  225 

made  the  phrase  "'listing  during  the  war"  a  proverbial  ex- 
pression, signifying  unalterable  devotion  to  our  cause,  through 
good  fortune  and  ill  fortune,  till  it  reaches  its  close.  This  is  a 
plain  distinction;  and  although,  perhaps,  I  might  wish  to  do 
more,  I  see  good  ground  to  stop  here  for  the  present,  if  we  must 
stop  anywhere.  The  militia  who  fought  at  Concord,  at  Lexing- 
ton, and  at  Bunker's  Hill,  have  been  aUuded  to,  in  the  course  of 
this  debate,  in  terms  of  well-deserved  praise.  Be  assured,  Sir, 
there  could  with  difficulty  be  found  a  man  who  drew  his  sword, 
or  carried  his  musket,  at  Concord,  at  Lexington,  or  Bunker's 
Hill,  who  would  wish  you  to  reject  this  bill.  They  might  ask 
you  to  do  more,  but  never  to  refrain  from  doing  this.  Would 
to  God  they  were  assembled  here,  and  had  the  fate  of  the  bill  in 
their  own  hands !  Would  to  God  the  question  of  its  passage 
were  to  be  put  to  them !  They  would  affirm  it,  with  a  unity  of 
acclamation  that  would  rend  the  roof  of  the  Capitol. 

I  support  the  measure,  then,  Mr.  President,  because  I  think  it 
a  proper  and  judicious  exercise  of  well-merited  national  bounty. 
1  think,  too,  the  general  sentiment  of  my  own  constituents,  and 
of  the  country,  is  in  favor  of  it.  1  believe  the  member  from 
North  Carolina  himself  admitted,  that  an  increasing  desire  that 
something  should  be  done  for  the  Revolutionary  officers  mani- 
fested itself  in  the  community.  The  bill  will  make  no  imme- 
diate or  great  draught  on  the  treasury.  It  will  not  derange  the 
finances.  If  I  had  supposed  that  the  state  of  the  treasury  would 
have  been  urged  against  the  passage  of  this  bill,  I  should  not 
have  voted  for  the  Delaware  breakwater,  because  that  might 
have  been  commenced  next  year ;  nor  for  the  whole  of  the  sums 
which  have  been  granted  for  fortifications;  for  their  advance- 
ment with  a  little  more  or  a  little  less  of  rapidity  is  not  of  the 
first  necessity.  But  the  present  case  is  urgent.  What  we  do 
should  be  done  quickly. 

Mr.  President,  allow  me  to  repeat,  that  neither  the  subject  nor 
the  occasion  is  an  ordinary  one.  Our  own  fellow-citizens  do 
not  so  consider  it;  the  world  will  not  so  regard  it.  A  few  de- 
serving soldiers  are  before  us,  who  served  their  country  faithfully 
through  a  seven  years'  war.  That  war  was  a  civil  war.  It  was 
commenced  on  principle,  and  sustained  by  every  sacrifice,  on 
the  great  ground  of  civil  liberty.  They  fought  bravely,  and  bled 
freely.  The  cause  succeeded,  and  the  country  triumphed.  But 


226  REVOLUTIONARY   OFFICERS. 

(he  condition  of  things  did  not  allow  that  country,  sensible  as 
it  was  to  their  services  and  merits,  to  do  them  the  full  justice 
,  which  it  desired.  It  could  not  entirely  fulfil  its  engagements. 
The  army  was  to  be  disbanded;  but  it  was  unpaid.  It  was  to 
lay  down  its  own  power ;  but  there  was  no  government  with 
adequate  power  to  perform  what  had  been  promised  to  it.  In 
this  critical  moment,  what  is  its  conduct?  Does  it  disgrace  its 
high  character?  Is  temptation  able  to  seduce  it?  Does  it 
speak  of  righting  itself?  Does  it  undertake  to  redress  its  own 
wrongs  by  its  own  sword  ?  Does  it  lose  its  patriotism  in  its 
deep  sense  of  injury  and  injustice?  Does  military  ambition 
cause  its  integrity  to  swerve  ?  Far,  far  otherwise. 

It  had  faithfully  served  and  saved  the  country ;  and  to  that 
country  it  now  referred,  with  unhesitating  confidence,  its  claim 
and  its  complaints.  It  laid  down  its  arms  with  alacrity ;  it  min- 
gled itself  with  the  mass  of  the  community ;  and  it  waited  till, 
in  better  times,  and  under  a  new  government,  its  services  might 
be  rewarded,  and  the  promises  made  to  it  fulfilled.  Sir,  this  ex- 
ample is  worth  more,  far  more,  to  the  cause  of  civil  liberty,  than 
this  bill  will  cost  us.  We  can  hardly  recur  to  it  too  often,  or 
dwell  on  it  too  much,  for  the  honor  of  our  country  and  of  its 
defenders.  Allow  me  to  say,  again,  that  meritorious  service  in 
civil  war  is  worthy  of  peculiar  consideration ;  not  only  because 
there  is,  in  such  wars,  usually  less  power  to  restrain  irregularities, 
but  because,  also,  they  expose  all  prominent  actors  in  them  to 
different  kinds  of  danger.  It  is  rebellion  as  well  as  war.  Those 
who  engage  in  it  must  look,  not  only  to  the  dangers  of  the  field, 
but  to  confiscation  also,  and  attainder,  and  ignominious  death. 
With  no  efficient  and  settled  government,  either  to  sustain  or 
to  control  them,  and  with  every  sort  of  danger  before  them,  it  is 
great  merit  to  have  conducted  themselves  with  fidelity  to  the 
country,  under -every  discouragement  on  the  one  hand,  and  with 
unconquerable  bravery  towards  the  common  enemy  on  the  other. 
Such,  Sir,  was  the  conduct  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Rev- 
olutionary army. 

I  would  not,  and  do  not,  underrate  the  services  or  the  suffer- 
ings of  others.  I  know  well,  that  in  the  Revolutionary  contest 
all  made  sacrifices,  and  all  endured  sufferings ;  as  well  those  who 
paid  for  service,  as  those  who  performed  it.  I  know  that,  in  the 
records  of  all  the  little  municipalities  of  New  England,  abundant 


REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS.  227 

proof  exists  of  the  zeal  with  which  the  cause  was  espoused,  and 
the  sacrifices  with  which  it  was  cheerfully  maintained.  I  have 
often  there  read,  with  absolute  astonishment,  of  the  taxes,  the 
contributions,  the  heavy  subscriptions,  sometimes  provided  for 
by  disposing  of  the  absolute  necessaries  of  life,  by  which  enlist- 
ments were  procured,  and  food  and  clothing  furnished.  It  would 
be,  Sir,  to  these  same  municipalities,  to  these  same  little  patri- 
otic councils  of  Revolutionary  times,  that  I  should  now  look,  with 
most  assured  confidence,  for  a  hearty  support  of  what  this  bill 
proposes.  There,  the  scale  of  Revolutionary  merit  stands  high. 
There  are  still  those  living  who  speak  of  the  19th  of  April,  and 
the  17th  of  June,  without  thinking  it  necessary  to  add  the  year. 
These  men,  one  and  all,  would  rejoice  to  find  that  those  who 
stood  by  the  country  bravely,  through  the  doubtful  and  perilous 
struggle  which  conducted  it  to  independence  and  glory,  had  not 
been  forgotten  in  the  decline  and  close  of  life. 

The  objects,  then,  Sir,  of  the  proposed  bounty,  are  most  wor- 
thy and  deserving  objects.  The  services  which  they  rendered 
were  in  the  highest  degree  useful  and  important.  The  country 
to  which  they  rendered  them  is  great  and  prosperous.  They 
have  lived  to  see  it  glorious ;  let  them  not  live  to  see  it  unkind. 
For  me,  I  can  give  them  but  my  vote  and  my  prayers ;  and  I 
give  them  both  with  my  whole  heart. 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON  THE  TARIFF.* 


MR.  PRESIDENT, —  This  subject  is  surrounded  with  embarrass- 
ments on  all  sides.  Of  itself,  however  wisely  or  temperately 
treated,  it  is  full  of  difficulties ;  and  these  difficulties  have  not 
been  diminished  by  the  particular  frame  of  this  bill,  nor  by  the 
manner  hitherto  pursued  of  proceeding  with  it.  A  diversity  of 
interests  exists,  or  is  supposed  to  exist,  in  different  parts  of  the 
country;  this  is  one  source  of  difficulty.  Different  opinions 
are  entertained  as  to  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress ;  this 
is  another.  And  then,  again,  different  members  of  the  Senate 
have  instructions  which  they  feel  bound  to  obey,  and  which 
clash  with  one  another.  We  have  this  morning  seen  an  honor- 
able member  from  New  York,  an  important  motion  being  under 
consideration,  lay  his  instructions  on  the  table,  and  point  to 
them  as  his  power  of  attorney,  and  as  containing  the  directions 
for  his  vote. 

Those  who  intend  to  oppose  this  bill,  under  all  circumstances, 
and  in  any  or  all  forms,  care  not  how  objectionable  it  now  is,  or 
how  bad  it  may  be  made.  Others,  finding  their  own  leading 
objects  satisfactorily  secured  by  it,  naturally  enough  press  for- 
ward, without  staying  to  consider  deliberately  how  injuriously 
other  interests  may  be  affected.  All  these  causes  create  embar- 
rassments, and  inspire  just  fears  that  a  wise  and  useful  result  is 
hardly  to  be  expected.  There  seems  a  strange  disposition  to 
run  the  hazard  of  extremes ;  and  to  forget  that,  in  cases  of  this 
kind,  measure,  proportion,  and  degree  are  objects  of  inquiry,  and 
the  true  rules  of  judgment.  I  have  not  had  the  slightest  wish 

*  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  9th  of  May. 
1828,  on  the  Tariff  Bill. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF.  229 

to  discuss  the  measure ;  not  believing  that,  in  the  present  state 
of  things,  any  good  could  tte  done  by  me  in  that  way.  But  the 
frequent  declaration  that  this  was  altogether  a  New  England 
measure,  a  bill  for  securing  a  monopoly  to  the  capitalists  of  the 
North,  and  other  expressions  of  a  similar  nature,  have  induced 
me  to  address  the  Senate  on  the  subject. 

New  England,  Sir,  has  not  been  a  leader  in  this  policy.  On 
the  contrary,  she  held  back  herself  and  tried  to  hold  others  back 
from  it,  from  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  to  1824.  Up  to 
1824,  she  was  accused  of  sinister  and  selfish  designs,  because 
she  discountenanced  the  progress  of  this  policy.  It  was  laid  to 
her  charge  thenj  that,  having  established  her  manufactures  her- 
self, she  wished  that  others  should  not  have  the  power  of  rival- 
ling her,  and  for  that  reason  opposed  all  legislative  encourage- 
ment. Under  this  angry  denunciation  against  her,  the  act  of 
1824  passed.  Now,  the  imputation  is  precisely  of  an  opposite 
character.  The  present  measure  is  pronounced  to  be  exclusively 
for  the  benefit  of  New  England ;  to  be  brought  forward  by  her 
agency,  and  designed  to  gratify  the  cupidity  of  the  proprietors 
of  her  wealthy  establishments. 

Both  charges,  Sir,  are  equally  without  the  slightest  foundation. 
The  opinion  of  New  England  up  to  1824  was  founded  in  the 
conviction  that,  on  the  whole,  it  was  wisest  and  best,  both  for 
herself  and  others,  that  manufactures  should  make  haste  slowly. 
She  felt  a  reluctance  to  trust  great  interests  on  the  foundation 
of  government  patronage ;  for  who  could  tell  how  long  such 
patronage  would  last,  or  with  what  steadiness,  skill,  or  perse- 
verance it  would  continue  to  be  granted?  It  is  now  nearly 
fifteen  years  since,  among  the  first  things  which  I  ever  ventured 
to  say  here,  I  expressed  a  serious  doubt  whether  this  govern- 
ment was  fitted,  by  its  construction,  to  administer  aid  and  pro- 
tection to  particular  pursuits ;  whether,  having  called  such  pur- 
suits into  being  by  indications  of  its  favor,  it  would  not  after- 
wards desert  them,  should  troubles  come  upon  them,  and  leave 
them  to  their  fate.  Whether  this  prediction,  the  result,  certain- 
ly, of  chance,  and  not  of  sagacity,  is  about  to  be  fulfilled,  remains 
to  be  seen. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  true,  that,  from  the  very  first  commence- 
ment of  the  government,  those  who  have  administered  its  con- 
cerns have  held  a  tone  of  encouragement  and  invitation  towards 

voi ..  in.  20 


230  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF. 

those  who  should  embark  in  manufactures.  All  the  Presidents, 
I  believe  without  exception,  have  concurred  in  this  general  sen- 
timent ;  and  the  very  first  act  of  Congress  laying  duties  on 
imports  adopted  the  then  unusual  expedient  of  a  preamble,  ap- 
parently for  little  other  purpose  than  that  of  declaring  thai  the 
duties  which  it  imposed  were  laid  for  the  encouragement  and 
protection  of  manufactures.  When,  at  the  commencement,  of 
the  late  war,  duties  were  doubled,  we  were  told  that  we  should 
find  a  mitigation  of  the  weight  of  taxation  in  the  new  aid  and 
succor  which  would  be  thus  afforded  to  our  own  manufacturing 
labor.  Like  arguments  were  urged,  and  prevailed,  but  not  by 
the  aid  of  New  England  votes,  when  the  tariff  was  afterwards 
arranged,  at  the  close  of  the  war  in  1816.  Finally,  after  a  whole 
winter's  deliberation,  the  act  of  1824  received  the  sanction  of 
both  houses  of  Congress,  and  settled  the  policy  of  the  country. 
What,  then,  was  New  England  to  do  ?  She  was  fitted  for  man- 
ufacturing operations,  by  the  amount  and  character  of  her  popu- 
lation, by  her  capital,  by  the  vigor  and  energy  of  her  free  labor, 
by  the  skill,  economy,  enterprise,  and  perseverance  of  her  peo- 
ple. I  repeat,  What  was  she  under  these  circumstances  to  do? 
A  great  and  prosperous  rival  in  her  near  neighborhood,  threaten- 
ing to  draw  from  her  a  part,  perhaps  a  great  part,  of  her  foreign 
commerce ;  was  she  to  use,  or  to  neglect,  those  other  means  of 
seeking  her  own  prosperity  which  belonged  to  her  character  and 
her  condition  ?  Was  she  to  hold  out  for  ever  against  the  course 
of  the  government,  and  see  herself  losing  on  one  side,  and  yet 
make  no  effort  to  sustain  herself  on  the  other  ?  No,  Sir.  Noth- 
ing was  left  to  New  England,  after  the  act  of  1824,  but  to  con- 
form herself  to  the  will  of  others.  Nothing  was  left  to  her,  but 
to  consider  that  the  government  had  fixed  and  determined  its 
own  policy ;  and  that  policy  was  protection. 

New  England,  poor  in  some  respects,  in  others  is  as  wealthy 
as  her  neighbors.  Her  soil  would  be  held  in  low  estimation  by 
those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  and 
the  fertile  plains  of  the  South.  But  in  industry,  in  habits  of  la- 
bor, skill,  and  in  accumulated  capital,  the  fruit  of  two  centuries 
of  industry,  she  may  be  said  to  be  rich.  After  this  final  declara- 
tion, this  solemn  promulgation  of  the  policy  of  the  government,  I 
again  ask,  What  was  she  to  do  ?  Was  she  to  deny  herself  the 
use  of  her  advantages,  natural  and  acquired  ?  Was  she  to  con- 


SECOND  SPEECH  OX  THE  TARIFF.  231 

tent  herself  with  useless  regrets  ?  Was  she  longer  to  resist  what 
she  could  no  longer  prevent  ?  Or  was  she,  rather,  to  adapt  her 
acts  to  her  condition ;  and,  seeing  the  policy  of  the  government 
thus  settled  and  fixed,  to  accommodate  to  it  as  well  as  she  could 
her  own  pursuits  and  her  own  industry  ?  Every  man  will  see 
that  she  had  no  option.  Every  man  will  confess  that  there  re- 
mained for  her  but  one  course.  She  not  only  saw  this  herself, 
but  had  all  along  foreseen,  that,  if  the  system  of  protecting  man- 
ufactures should  be  adopted,  she  must  go  largely  into  them.  I 
believe,  Sir,  almost  every  man  from  New  England  who  voted 
against  the  law  of  1824  declared  that,  if,  notwithstanding  his 
opposition  to  that  law,  it  should  still  pass,  there  would  be  no  al- 
ternative but  to  consider  the  course  and  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment as  then  settled  and  fixed,  and  to  act  accordingly.  The  law 
did  pass ;  and  a  vast  increase  of  investment  in  manufacturing 
establishments  was  the  consequence.  Those  who  made  such 
investments  probably  entertained  not  the  slighest  doubt  that  as 
much  as  was  promised  would  be  effectually  granted ;  and  that 
if,  owing  to  any  unforeseen  occurrence  or  untoward  event,  the 
benefit  designed  by  the  law  to  any  branch  of  manufactures 
should  not  be  realized,  it  would  furnish  a  fair  case  for  the  con- 
sideration of  government.  Certainly  they  could  not  expect, 
after  what  had  passed,  that  interests  of  great  magnitude  would 
be  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  very  first  change  of  circumstances 
which  might  occur. 

As  a  general  remark,  it  may  be  said,  that  the  interests  con- 
cerned in  the  act  of  1824  did  not  complain  of  their  condition 
under  it,  excepting  only  those  connected  with  the  woollen  man- 
ufactures. These  did  complain,  not  so  much  of  the  act  itself 
as  of  a  new  state  of  circumstances,  unforeseen  when  the  law 
passed,  but  which  had  now  arisen  to  thwart  its  beneficial  opera- 
tions as  to  them,  although  in  one  respect,  perhaps,  the  law  itself 
was  thought  to  be  unwisely  framed. 

Three  causes  have  been  generally  stated  as  having  produced 
the  disappointment  experienced  by  the  manufacturers  of  wool 
under  the  law  of  1824. 

First,  it  is  alleged  that  the  price  of  the  raw  material  has  been 
raised  too  high  by  the  act  itself.  This  point  had  been  dis- 
cussed at  the  time,  and  although  opinions  varied,  the  result,  so 
far  as  it  depended  on  this  part  of  the  case,  though  it  may  be 


232  SECOND   SPEECH  ON   THE  TARIFF. 

said  to  have  been  unexpected,  was  certainly  not  entirely  un- 
foreseen.* 

But,  secondly,  the  manufacturers  imputed  their  disappoint- 
ment to  a  reduction  of  the  price  of  wool  in  England,  which  took 
place  just  about  the  date  of  the  law  of  1824.  This  reduction 
was  produced  by  lowering  the  duty  on  imported  wool  from  six- 
pence sterling  to  one  penny  sterling  per  pound.  The  effect  of 
this  is  obvious  enough ;  but  in  order  to  see  the  real  extent  of  the 
reduction,  it  may  be  convenient  to  state  the  matter  more  partic- 
ularly. 

The  meaning  of  our  law  was  doubtless  to  give  the  American 
manufacturer  an  advantage  over  his  English  competitors.  Pro- 
tection must  mean  this,  or  it  means  nothing.  The  English 
manufacturer  having  certain  advantages  on  his  side,  such  as 
the  lower  price  of  labor  and  the  lower  interest  of  money,  the 
object  of  our  law  was  to  counteract  these  advantages  by  creat- 
ing others,  in  behalf  of  the  American  manufacturer.  Therefore, 
to  see  what  was  necessary  to  be  done  in  order  that  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  might  sustain  the  competition,  a  comparison 
of  the  respective  advantages  and  disadvantages  was  to  be  made. 
In  this  view  the  very  first  element  to  be  considered  was,  what  is 
the  cost  of  the  raw  material  to  each  party.  On  this  the  whole 
must  materially  depend.  Now  when  the  law  of  1824  passed, 
the  English  manufacturer  paid  a  duty  of  sixpence  sterling  per 
pound  on  imported  wool.  But  in  a  very  few  days  afterwards, 
this  duty  was  reduced  by  Parliament  from  sixpence  to  a  penny. 
A  reduction  of  five  pence  per  pound  in  the  price  of  wool  was 
estimated  in  Parliament  to  be  equal  to  a  reduction  of  twenty- 
six  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  all  imported  wool ;  and  this  reduc- 
tion, it  is  obvious,  had  its  effect  on  the  price  of  home-produced 
wool  also.  Almost,  then,  at  the  very  moment  that  the  framers 
of  the  act  of  1824  were  raising  the  price  of  the  raw  material 
here,  as  that  act  did  raise  it,  it  was  lowered  in  England  by  the 
very  great  reduction  of  twenty-six  per  cent.  Of  course,  this 
changed  the  whole  basis  of  the  calculation.  It  wrought  a  com- 
plete change  in  the  relative  advantages  and  disadvantages  of 
the  English  and  American  competitors,  and  threw  the  prepon- 
derance of  advantage  most  decidedly  on  the  side  of  the  English. 

*  See  above,  p.  135. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF.  233 

If  the  American  manufacturer  had  not  vastly  too  great  a  prefer- 
ence before  this  reduction  took  place,  it  is  clear  he  had  too  little 
afterwards. 

In  a  paper  which  has  been  presented  to  the  Senate,  and  often 
referred  to,  —  a  paper  distinguished  for  the  ability  and  clearness 
with  which  it  enforces  general  principles,  —  the  Boston  Report, 
it  is  clearly  proved  (what,  indeed,  is  sufficiently  obvious  from 
the  mere  comparison  of  dates)  that  the  British  government  did 
not  reduce  its  duty  on  wool  because  of  our  act  of  1824.  Cei- 
tainly  this  is  true ;  but  the  effect  of  that  reduction  on  our  manu- 
factures was  the  same  precisely  as  if  the  British  act  had  been 
designed  to  operate  against  them,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  I 
think  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  our  law  of  1824,  and  the  re- 
duction of  the  wool  duty  in  England,  taken  together,  left  our 
manufactures  in  a  worse  condition  than  they  were  before.  If 
there  was  any  reasonable  ground,  therefore,  for  passing  the 
law  of  1824,  there  is  now  the  same  ground  for  some  other  meas- 
ure ;  and  this  ground,  too,  is  strengthened  by  the  consideration 
of  the  hopes  excited,  the  enterprises  undertaken,  and  the  capital 
invested,  in  consequence  of  that  law. 

In  the  last  place,  it  was  alleged  by  the  manufacturers  that 
they  suffered  from  the  mode  of  collecting  the  duties  on  woollen 
fabrics  at  the  custom-houses.  These  duties  are  ad  valorem  du- 
ties. Such  duties,  from  the  commencement  of  the  government, 
have  been  estimated  by  reference  to  the  invoice,  as  fixing  the 
value  at  the  place  whence  imported.  When  not  suspected  to 
be  false  or  fraudulent,  the  invoice  is  the  regular  proof  of  value. 
Originally  this  was  a  tolerably  safe  mode  of  proceeding.  While 
the  importation  was  mainly  in  the  hands  of  American  mer- 
chants, the  invoice  would  of  course,  if  not  false  or  fraudulent, 
express  the  terms  and  the  price  of  an  actual  purchase  and  sale. 
But  an  invoice  is  not  necessarily  an  instrument  expressing  the 
sale  of  goods,  and  their  prices.  If  there  be  but  a  list  or  cata- 
logue, with  prices  stated  by  way  of  estimate,  it  is  still  an  in- 
voice, and  within  the  law.  Now  the  suggestion  is,  that  the 
English  manufacturer,  in  making  out  an  invoice,  in  which  prices 
are  thus  stated  by  himself  in  the  way  of  estimate  merely,  is  able 
to  obtain  an  important  advantage  over  the  American  merchant 
who  purchases  in  the  same  market,  and  whose  invoice  states, 
consequently,  the  actual  prices,  on  the  sale.  In  proof  of  this 
20* 


234  SECOND  SPEECH  ON   THE  TARIFF. 

suggestion,  it  is  alleged  that,  in  the  largest  importing  city  in  the 
Union,  a  very  great  proportion,  some  say  nearly  all.  of  the  wool- 
len fabrics  are  imported  on  foreign  account.  The  various  papers 
which  have  come  before  us,  praying  for  a  tax  on  auction  sales, 
aver  that  the  invoice  of  the  foreign  importer  is  generally  much 
lower  than  that  of  the  American  importer ;  and  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  this  and  of  the  practice  of  sales  at  auction,  the  Ameri- 
can merchant  must  be  driven  out  of  the  trade.  I  cannot  answer 
for  the  entire  accuracy  of  these  statements,  but  I  have  no  doubt 
there  is  something  of  truth  in  them.  The  main  facts  have  been 
often^stated,  and  I  have  neither  seen  nor  heard  a  denial  of  them. 

Is  it  true,  then,  that  nearly  the  whole  importation  of  woollens 
is,  in  the  largest  importing  city,  in  the  hands  of  foreigners  ?  Is 
it  true,  as  stated,  that  the  invoices  of  such  foreign  importers  are 
generally  found  to  be  lower  than  those  of  the  American  import- 
er ?  If  these  things  be  so,  it  will  be  admitted  that  there  is  rea- 
son to  believe  that  undervaluations  do  take  place,  and  that  some 
corrective  for  the  evil  should  be  administered.  I  am  glad  to 
see  that  the  American  merchants  themselves  begin  to  bestow 
attention  upon  a  subject,  as  interesting  to  them  as  it  is  to  the 
manufacturers. 

Under  this  state  of  things,  Sir,  the  law  of  the  last  session  was 
proposed.  It  was  confined,  as  I  thought  properly,  to  wool  and 
\voollens.  It  took  up  the  great  and  leading  subject  of  com- 
plaint, and  nothing  else.  It  was  urged,  indeed,  against  that  bill, 
that,  although  much  had  been  said  of  frauds  at  the  custom-house, 
no  provision  was  made  in  it  for  the  prevention  of  such  frauds. 
That  is  a  mistake.  The  general  frame  of  the  bill  was  such, 
that,  if  skilfully  drawn  and  adapted  to  its  purpose,  its  tendency 
to  prevent  such  frauds  would  be  manifest.  By  the  fixing  of 
prices  at  successive  points  of  graduation,  or  minimums,  as  they 
are  called,  the  power  of  evading  duties  by  undervaluations  would 
be  most  materially  restrained.  If  these  points,  indeed,  were  suf- 
ficiently distant,  it  is  obvious  the  duty  would  assume  something 
of  the  certainty  and  precision  of  a  specific  duty.  But  this  bill 
failed,  and  Congress  adjourned  in  March,  last  year,  leaving  the 
subject  where  it  had  found  it. 

The  complaints  which  had  given  rise  to  the  bill  continued; 
and  in  the  course  of  the  summer  a  meeting  of  the  wool-growers 
and  wool-manufacturers  was  held  in  Pennsylvania,  at  which 


SECOND   SPEECH   OF   THE   TARIEF.  235 

a  petition  to  Congress  was  agreed  upon.  I  do  not  feel  it  neces- 
sary, on  behalf  of  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  to  disclaim  a 
participation  in  that  meeting.  Persons  of  much  worth  and  re- 
spectability attended  it  from  Massachusetts,  and  its  proceed- 
ings and  results  manifested,  I  think,  a  degree  of  temper  and 
moderation  highly  creditable  to  those  who  composed  it. 

But  while  the  bill  of  last  year  was  confined  to  that  which 
alone  had  been  a  subject  of  complaint,  the  bill  now  before  us  is 
of  a  very  different  description.  It  proposes  to  raise  duties  on 
various  other  articles  besides  wool  and  woollens.  It  contains 
some  provisions  which  bear  with  unnecessary  severity  on  the 
whole  community ;  others  which  affect,  with  peculiar  hardship, 
particular  interests;  while  both  of  them  benefit  nobody  and  noth- 
ing but  the  treasury.  It  contains  provisions  which,  with  what- 
ever motive  put  into  it,  it  is  confessed  are  now  kept  in  for  the 
very  purpose  of  destroying  the  bill  altogether;  or  with  the  in- 
tent to  compel  those  who  expect  to  derive  benefit,  to  feel  smart 
from  it  also.  Probably  such  a  motive  of  action  has  not  often 
been  avowed. 

The  wool  manufacturers  think  they  have  made  out  a  case  for 
the  interposition  of  Congress.  They  happen  to  live  principally 
at  the  North  and  East;  and  in  a  bill  professing  to  be  for  their 
relief,  other  provisions  are  found,  which  are  supposed  (and  sup- 
ported because  they  are  supposed)  to  be  such  as  will  press  with 
peculiar  hardship  on  that  quarter  of  the  country.  Sir,  what  can 
be  expected,  but  evil,  when  a  temper  like  this  prevails  ?  How 
can  such  a  hostile,  retaliatory  legislation  be  reconciled  to  com- 
mon justice,  or  common  prudence?  Nay,  Sir,  this  rule  of  action 
seems  carried  still  farther.  Not  only  are  clauses  found,  and  con- 
tinued in  the  bill,  which  oppress  particular  interests,  but  taxes 
are  laid  also,  which  will  be  severely  felt  by  the  whole  Union ; 
and  this,  too,  with  the  same  design,  and  for  the  same  end  before 
mentioned,  of  causing  the  smart  of  the  bill  to  be  felt.  Of  this 
description  is  the  molasses  tax ;  a  tax,  in  my  opinion,  absurd 
and  preposterous,  in  relation  to  any  object  of  protection,  need- 
lessly oppressive  to  the  whole  community,  and  beneficial  no- 
where on  earth  but  at  the  treasury.  And  yet  here  it  is,  and  here 
it  is  kept,  under  an  idea,  conceived  in  ignorance  and  cherished 
for  a  short-lived  triumph,  that  New  England  will  be  deterred  by 
this  tax  from  protecting  her  extensive  woollen  manufactures;  or 


236  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF. 

if  not,  that  the  authors  of  this  policy  may  at  least  have  the 
pleasure,  the  high  pleasure,  of  perceiving  that  she  feels  the  ill 
effects  of  this  part  of  the  bill. 

Sir,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  this  tax.  The  molasses  im- 
ported into  the  United  States  amounts  to  thirteen  millions  of 
gallons  annually.  Of  this  quantity,  not  more  than  three  mil- 
lions are  distilled ;  the  remaining  ten  millions  being  consumed, 
as  an  article  of  wholesome  food.  The  proposed  tax  is  not  to 
be  laid  for  revenue.  That  is  not  pretended.  It  was  not  intro- 
duced for  the  benefit  of  the  sugar-planters.  They  are  contented 
with  their  present  condition,  and  have  applied  for  nothing. 
What,  then,  was  the  object?  Sir,  the  original  professed  object 
was  to  increase,  by  this  new  duty  on  molasses,  the  consumption 
of  spirits  distilled  from  grain.  This,  I  say,  was  the  object  origi- 
nally professed.  But  in  this  point  of  view  the  measure  appears 
to  me  to  be  preposterous.  It  is  monstrous,  and  out  of  all  pro- 
portion and  relation  of  means  to  ends.  It  proposes  to  double 
the  duty  on  the  ten  millions  of  gallons  of  molasses  which  are 
consumed  for  food,  in  order  that  it  may  likewise  double  the  duty 
on  the  three  millions  which  are  distilled  into  spirits ;  and  all 
this  for  the  contingent  and  doubtful  purpose  of  augmenting  the 
consumption  of  spirits  distilled  from  grain.  I  say  contingent 
and  doubtful  purpose,  because  I  do  not  believe  any  such  effect 
will  be  produced.  I  do  not  think  a  hundred  gallons  more  of 
spirits  distilled  from  grain  will  find  a  market  in  consequence  of 
this  tax  on  molasses.  The  debate,  here  and  elsewhere,  has 
shown  that,  I  think,  clearly.  But  suppose  some  slight  effect  of 
that  kind  should  be  produced,  is  it  so  desirable  an  object  as  that 
it  should  be  sought  by  such  means  ?  Shall  we  tax  food  to  en- 
courage intemperance  ?  Shall  we  raise  the  price  of  a  wholesome 
article  of  sustenance,  of  daily  consumption,  especially  among 
the  poorer  classes,  in  order  that  we  may  enjoy  a  mere  chance  of 
causing  these  same  classes  to  use  more  of  our  home-made 
ardent  spirits  ? 

Sir,  the  bare  statement  of  this  question  puts  it  beyond  the 
reach  of  all  argument.  No  man  will  seriously  undertake  the 
defence  of  such  a  tax.  It  is  better,  much  more  candid  certainly, 
to  admit,  as  has  been  admitted,  that,  obnoxious  as  it  is  and 
abominable  as  it  is,  it  is  kept  in  the  bill  with  a  special  view  to 
its  effects  on  New  England  votes  and  New  England  interests. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF.  237 

The  bill  also  takes  away  all  the  drawback  allowed  by  existing 
jaws  on  the  exportation  of  spirits  distilled  from  molasses ;  and 
this,  it  is  supposed,  and  truly  supposed,  will  injuriously  affect 
New  England.  It  will  have  this  effect  to  a  considerable  degree ; 
for  the  exportation  of  such  spirits  is  a  part  of  her  trade,  and, 
though  not  great  in  amount,  it  is  a  part  which  mingles  usefully 
with  the  exportation  of  other  articles,  assists  to  make  out  an 
assorted  cargo,  and  finds  a  market  in  the  North  of  Europe,  the 
Mediterranean,  and  in  South  America.  This  exportation  the 
bill  proposes  entirely  to  destroy. 

The  increased  duty  on  molasses,  while  it  thus  needlessly  and 
wantonly  enhances  the  price  to  the  consumer,  may  affect  also, 
in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  the  importation  of  that  article ;  and 
be  thus  injurious  to  the  commerce  of  the  country.  The  impor- 
tation of  molasses,  in  exchange  for  lumber,  provisions,  and  other 
articles  of  our  own  production,  is  one  of  the  largest  portions  of  our 
West  India  trade,  —  a  trade,  it  may  be  added,  though  of  small 
profit,  yet  of  short  voyages,  suited  to  small  capitals,  employing 
many  hands  and  much  navigation,  and  the  earliest  and  oldest 
branch  of  our  foreign  commerce.  That  portion  of  this  trade 
which  we  now  enjoy  is  conducted  on  the  freest  and  most  liberal 
principles.  The  exports  which  sustain  it  are  from  the  East,  the 
South,  and  the  West ;  every  part  of  the  country  having  thus  an 
interest  in  its  continuance  and  extension.  A  market  for  these 
exports  is  of  infinitely  more  importance  to  any  of  these  por- 
tions of  the  country,  than  all  the  benefit  to  be  expected  from 
the  supposed  increased  consumption  of  spirits  distilled  from 
grain. 

Yet,  Sir,  this  tax  is  to  be  kept  in  the  bill,  that  New  England 
may  be  made  to  feel.  Gentlemen  who  hold  it  to  be  wholly  un- 
constitutional to  lay  any  tax  whatever  for  the  purposes  intended 
by  this  bill,  cordially  vote  for  this  tax.  'An  honorable  gentle- 
man from  Maryland  *  caUs  the  whole  bill  a  "  bill  of  abomina- 
tions." This  tax,  he  agrees,  is  one  of  its  abominations,  yet  he 
votes  for  it.  Both  the  gentlemen  from  North  Carolina  have 
signified  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  bill,  yet  they  have  both 
voted  to  double  the  tax  on  molasses.  Sir,  do  gentlemen  flatter 
themselves  that  this  course  of  policy  can  answer  their  purposes  ? 

*  Mr.  Smith. 


238  SECOND  SPEECH  ON   THE  TARIFF. 

Do  they  not  perceive  that  such  a  mode  of  proceeding,  with  a 
view  to  such  avowed  objects,  must  waken  a  spirit  that  shall  treat 
taunt  with  scorn  and  bid  menace  defiance  ?  Do  they  not  know 
(if  they  do  not,  it  is  time  they  did)  that  a  policy  like  this, 
avowed  with  such  self-satisfaction,  persisted  in  with  a  delight 
which  should  only  accompany  the  discovery  of  some  new  and 
wonderful  improvement  in  legislation,  will  compel  every  New 
England  man  to  feel  that  he  is  degraded  and  debased  if  he  does 
not  resist  it  ? 

Sir,  gentlemen  mistake  us;  they  greatly  mistake  us.  To 
those  who  propose  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  government,  and  to 
enact  laws  on  such  principles  as  these  and  for  such  objects  as 
these,  New  England,  be  assured,  will  exhibit,  not  submission, 
but  resistance ;  not  humiliation,  but  disdain.  Against  her,  de- 
pend on  it,  nothing  will  be  gained  by  intimidation.  If  you  pro- 
pose to  suffer  yourselves  in  order  that  she  may  be  made  to  suffer 
also,  she  will  bid  you  come  on ;  she  will  meet  challenge  with 
challenge ;  she  will  invite  you  to  do  your  worst,  and  your  best, 
and  to  see  who  will  hold  out  longest.  She  has  offered  you  every 
one  of  her  votes  in  the  Senate  to  strike  out  this  tax  on  molas- 
ses. You  have  refused  to  join  her,  and  to  strike  it  out.  With 
the  aid  of  the  votes  of  any  one  Southern  State,  for  example,  of 
North  Carolina,  it  could  have  been  struck  out.  But  North  Car- 
olina has  refused  her  votes  for  this  purpose.  She  has  voted  to 
keep  the  tax  in,  and  to  keep  it  in  at  the  highest  rate.  And  yet, 
Sir,  North  Carolina,  whatever  she  may  think  of  it,  is  fully  as 
much  interested  in  this  tax  as  Massachusetts.  I  think,  indeed, 
she  is  more  interested,  and  that  she  will  feel  it  more  heavily  and 
sorely.  She  is  herself  a  great  consumer  of  the  article,  through- 
out all  her  classes  of  population.  This  increase  of  the  duty  will 
levy  on  her  citizens  a  new  tax  of  fifty  thousand  dollars  a  year, 
or  more ;  and  yet  heV  representatives  on  this  floor  support  the 
tax,  although  they  have  so  often  told  us  that  her  people  are  now 
poor,  and  already  borne  down  with  taxes.  North  Carolina  will 
feel  this  tax  also  in  her  trade,  for  what  foreign  commerce  has 
she  more  useful  to  her  than  the  West  India  market  for  her  pro- 
visions and  lumber  ?  And  yet  the  gentlemen  from  North  Caro- 
lina insist  on  keeping  this  tax  in  the  bill.  Let  them  not,  then, 
complain.  Let  them  not  hereafter  call  it  the  work  of  others.  It 
b  their  own  work.  Let  them  not  lay  it  to  the  manufacturers. 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF.  239 

The  manufacturers  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Let  them 
not  lay  it  to  the  wool-growers.  The  wool-growers  have  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  Let  them  not  lay  it  to  New  England. 
New  England  has  done  nothing  but  oppose  it,  and  ask  them 
to  oppose  it  also.  No,  Sir ;  let  them  take  it  to  themselves. 
Let  them  enjoy  the  fruit  of  their  own  doings.  Let  them  assign 
their  motives  for  thus  taxing  their  own  constituents,  and  abide 
their  judgment ;  but  do  not  let  them  flatter  themselves  that  New 
England  cannot  pay  a  molasses  tax  as  long  as  North  Carolina 
chooses  that  such  a  tax  shall  be  paid. 

Sir,  I  am  sure  there  is  nobody  here  envious  of  the  prosperity 
of  New  England,  or  who  would  wish  to  see  it  destroyed.  But 
if  there  be  such  anywhere,  I  cannot  cheer  them  by  holding  out 
the  hope  of  a  speedy  accomplishment  of  their  wishes.  The 
prosperity  of  New  England,  like  that  of  other  parts  of  the  coun- 
try, may,  doubtless,  be  affected  injuriously  by  unwise  or  unjust 
laws.  It  may  be  impaired,  especially,  by  an  unsteady  and  shift- 
ing policy,  which  fosters  particular  objects  to-day,  and  abandons 
them  to-morrow.  She  may  advance  faster,  or  slower ;  but  the 
propelling  principle,  be  assured,  is  in  her,  deep,  fixed,  and  active. 
Her  course  is  onward  and  forward.  The  great  powers  of  free 
labor,  of  moral  habits,  of  general  education,  of  good  institutions, 
of  skill,  enterprise,  and  perseverance,  are  all  working  with  her, 
and  for  her ;  and  on  the  small  surface  which  her  population  cov- 
ers, she  is  destined,  I  think,  to  exhibit  striking  results  of  the  oper- 
ation of  these  potent  causes,  in  whatever  constitutes  the  happi- 
ness or  the  ornament  of  human  society. 

Mr.  President,  this  tax  on  molasses  will  benefit  the  treasury, 
though  it  will  benefit  nobody  else.  Our  finances  will,  at  least, 
be  improved  by  it.  I  assure  the  gentlemen,  we  will  endeavor  to 
use  the  funds  thus  to  be  raised  properly  and  wisely,  and  to  the 
public  advantage.  We  have  already  passed  a  bill  for  the  Dela- 
ware breakwater;  another  is  before  us,  for  the  improvement  of 
several  of  our  harbors ;  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  bill  has 
this  moment  been  brought  into  the  Senate ;  and  next  session 
we  hope  to  bring  forward  the  breakwater  at  Nantucket.  These 
appropriations,  Sir,  will  require  pretty  ample  means ;  it  will  be 
convenient  to  have  a  well-supplied  treasury ;  and  I  state  for 
the  especial  consolation  of  the  honorable  gentlemen  from  North 
Carolina,  that  so  long  as  they  choose  to  compel  their  constit- 


240  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF. 

uents,  and  my  constituents,  to  pay  a  molasses  tax,  the  pro- 
ceeds thereof  shall  be  appropriated,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
to  valuable  national  objects,  in  useful  and  necessary  works  of 
internal  improvements. 

Mr.  President,  in  what  I  have  now  said,  I  have  but  followed 
where  others  have  led,  and  compelled  me  to  follow.  I  have  but 
exhibited  to  gentlemen  the  necessary  consequences  of  their  own 
course  of  proceeding.  But  this  manner  of  passing  laws  is 
wholly  against  my  own  judgment,  and  repugnant  to  all  my  feel- 
ings. And  I  would,  even  now,  once  more  solicit  gentlemen  to 
consider  whether  a  different  course  would  not  be  more  worthy 
of  the  Senate,  and  more  useful  to  the  country.  Why  should  we 
not  act  upon  this  bill,  article  by  article,  judge  fairly  of  each,  re- 
tain what  a  majority  approves,  and  reject  the  rest  ?  If  it  be,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Maryland  called  it,  "  a  bill  of  abominations," 
why  not  strike  out  as  many  of  the  abominations  as  we  can  ? 
Extreme  measures  cannot  tend  to  good.  They  must  produce 
mischief.  If  a  proper  and  moderate  bill  in  regard  to  wool  and 
woollens  had  passed  last  year,  we  should  not  now  be  in  our  pres- 
ent situation.  If  such  a  bill,  extended  perhaps  to  a  few  other 
articles,  if  necessity  so  required,  had  been  prepared  and  recom- 
mended at  this  session,  much  both  of  excitement  and  of  evil 
7 

would  have  been  avoided. 

Nevertheless,  Sir,  it  is  for  gentlemen  to  judge  for  themselves. 
If,  when  the  wool  manufacturers  think  they  have  a  fair  right  to 
call  on  Congress  to  carry  into  effect  what  was  intended  for  them 
by  the  law  of  1824,  and  when  there  is  manifested  some  disposi- 
tion to  comply  with  what  they  thus  request,  the  benefit  cannot 
be  granted  in  any  other  manner  than  by  inserting  it  in  a  sort  of 
bill  of  pains  and  penalties,  a  "  bill  of  abominations,"  it  is  not  for 
me  to  attempt  to  reason  down  what  has  not  been  reasoned  up ; 
but  I  must  content  myself  with  admonishing  gentlemen  that 
their  policy  is  destined,  in  all  probability,  to  terminate  in  their 
own  sore  disappointment. 

I  advert  once  more,  Sir,  to  the  subject  of  wool  and  woollens, 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  that,  even  in  respect  to  that  part  of 
the  bill,  the  interest  mainly  protected  is  not  that  of  the  manufac- 
turers. On  the  contrary,  it  is  that  of  the  wool-growers.  The 
wool-grower  is  vastly  more  benefited  than  the  manufacturer. 
The  interest  of  the  manufacturer  is  treated  as  secondary  and 

i 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF.  241 

subordinate,  throughout  the  bill.  Just  so  much,  and  no  more,  is 
done  for  him,  as  is  supposed  necessary  to  enable  him  to  purchase 
and  manufacture  the  wool.  The  agricultural  interest,  the  farm- 
ing interest,  the  interest  of  the  sheep-owner,  is  the  great  object 
which  the  bill  is  calculated  to  benefit,  and  which  it  will  benefit, 
if  the  manufacturer  can  be  kept  alive.  A  comparison  of  exist- 
ing duties  with  those  proposed  on  the  wool  and  on  the  cloth, 
will  show  how  this  part  of  the  case  stands. 

At  present,  a  duty  of  thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  is  laid  on  all 
wool  costing  ten  cents  per  pound,  or  upwards ;  and  a  duty  of 
fifteen  per  cent,  on  all  wool  under  that  price. 

The  present  bill  proposes  a  specific  duty  of  four  cents  per 
pound,  and  also  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  fifty  per  cent,  on  ah1  wool 
of  every  description. 

The  result  of  the  combination  of  these  two  duties  is,  that 
wool  fit  for  making  good  cloths,  and  costing  from  thirty  to  forty 
cents  per  pound  in  the  foreign  market,  will  pay  a  duty  at  least 
equal  to  sixty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  And  wool  costing  less  than 
ten  cents  in  the  foreign  market  will  pay  a  duty,  on  the  average, 
of  a  hundred  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Now,  Sir,  these  heavy  duties  are  laid  for  the  wool-grower. 
They  are  designed  to  give  a  spring  to  agriculture,  by  fostering 
one  of  its  most  important  products. 

But  let  us  see  what  is  done  for  the  manufacturer,  in  order  to 
enable  him  to  manufacture  the  raw  material,  at  prices  so  much 
enhanced. 

As  the  bill  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  advance 
of  duties  on  cloths  is  supposed  to  have  been  not  more  than  three 
per  cent,  on  the  minimum  points.  Taking  the  amount  of  duty 
to  be  now  thirty-seven  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  cloths,  this  bill, 
as  it  came  to  us,  proposed,  if  that  supposition  be  true,  only  to 
carry  it  up  to  forty.  Amendments  here  adopted  have  enhanced 
this  duty,  and  are  understood  to  have  carried  it  up  to  a  duty  of 
forty-five  or  perhaps  fifty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Taking  it  at  the 
highest,  the  duty  on  the  cloth  is  raised  thirteen  per  cent. ;  while 
that  on  wool  is  raised  in  some  instances  thirty,  and  in  some  in- 
stances eighty-five  per  cent. ;  that  is,  in  one  case  from  thirty  to 
sixty,  and  in  the  other  from  fifteen  to  a  hundred.  Now  the  cal- 
culation is  said  to  be  true  which  supposes  that  a  duty  of  thirty 
per  cent,  on  the  raw  material  enhances  by  fifteen  per  cent,  the 

VOL.    III.  21 


242  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE   TARIFF. 

cost  of  producing  the  cloth ;  the  raw  material  being  estimated 
generally  to  be  equal  to  half  the  expense  of  the  fabric.  So  that, 
while  by  this  bill  the  manufacturer  gains  thirteen  per  cent,  on 
the  cloth,  he  would  appear  to  lose  fifteen  per  cent,  on  the  same 
cloth  by  the  increase  in  the  price  of  the  wool.  And  this  would 
not  only  appear  to  be  true,  but  would,  I  suppose,  be  actually 
true,  were  it  not  that  the  market  may  be  open  to  the  manufac 
turer,  under  this  bill,  for  such  cloths  as  may  be  furnished  at 
prices  intermediate  between  the  graduated  prices  established  by 
the  bill. 

For  example,  few  or  no  foreign  cloths,  it  is  supposed,  costing 
more  than  fifty  cents  a  yard  and  less  than  a  dollar,  will  be  im- 
ported ;  therefore,  American  cloths  worth  more  than  fifty  cents, 
and  less  than  a  dollar,  will  find  a  market.  So  of  the  intervals, 
or  intermediate  spaces,  between  the  other  statute  prices.  In  this 
mode  it  may  be  hoped  that  the  manufacturers  may  be  sustained, 
and  rendered  able  to  carry  on  the  work  of  converting  the  raw 
material,  the  agricultural  product  of  the  country,  into  an  article 
necessary  and  fit  for  use.  This  statement,  I  think,  sufficiently 
shows  that  no  further  benefit  or  advantage  is  intended  for  them, 
than  such  as  shall  barely  enable  them  to  accomplish  that  pur- 
pose ;  and  that  the  object  to  which  all  others  have  been  made  to 
yield  is  the  advantage  of  agriculture. 

And  yet,  Sir,  it  is  on  occasion  of  a  bill  thus  framed,  that  a 
loud  and  ceaseless  cry  has  been  raised  against  what  is  called  the 
cupidity,  the  avarice,  the  monopolizing  spirit,  of  New  England 
manufacturers !  This  is  one  of  the  main  "  abominations  of  the 
bill"  ;  to  remedy  which  it  is  proposed  to  keep  in  the  other  abom- 
inations. Under  the  prospect  of  advantage  held  out  by  the  law 
of  1824,  men  have  ventured  their  fortunes,  and  their  means  of 
subsistence  for  themselves  and  families,  in  woollen  manufac- 
tures. They  have  ventured  investments  in  objects  requiring  a 
large  outlay  of  capital ;  in  mills,  houses,  water-works,  and  ex- 
pensive machinery.  Events  have  occurred,  blighting  their  pros- 
pects and  withering  their  hopes,  —  events  which  have  deprived 
them  of  that  degree  of  succor  which  the  legislature  manifestly 
intended.  They  come  here  asking  for  relief  against  an  unfore- 
seen occurrence,  for  remedy  against  that  which  Congress,  if  it 
had  foreseen,  would  have  prevented;  and  they  are  told,  that 
what  they  ask  is  an  abomination !  They  say  that  an  interest 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF.  243 

important  to  them,  and  important  to  the  country,  and  princi- 
pally called  into  existence  by  the  government  itself,  has  received 
a  severe  shock,  under  which  it  must  sink,  if  the  government  will 
not,  by  reasonable  means,  endeavor  to  preserve  what  it  has  cre- 
ated. And  they  are  met  with  a  volley  of  hard  names,  a  tirade 
of  reproaches,  and  a  loud  cry  against  capitalists,  speculators,  and 
stock-jobbers !  For  one,  I  think  them  hardly  treated ;  I  think, 
and  from  the  beginning  have  thought,  their  claim  to  be  a  fair 
one.  With  how  much  soever  of  undue  haste,  or  even  of  credu- 
lity, they  may  be  thought  to  have  embarked  in  these  pursuits, 
under  the  hopes  held  out  by  government,  I  do  not  feel  it  to  be 
just  that  they  should  be  abandoned  to  their  fate  on  the  first  ad- 
verse change  of  circumstances ;  although  I  have  always  seen, 
and  now  see,  how  difficult,  perhaps  I  should  rather  say  how  im- 
possible, it  is  for  Congress  to  act,  when  such  changes  occur,  in  a 
manner  at  once  efficient  and  discreet;  prompt,  and  yet  mod- 
erate. 

For  these  general  reasons,  and  on  these  grounds,  I  am  decid' 
edly  in  favor  of  a  measure  which  shall  uphold  and  support,  in 
behalf  of  the  manufacturers,  the  law  of  1824,  and  carry  its  bene- 
fits and  advantages  to  the  full  extent  intended.  And  though  I 
am  not  altogether  satisfied  with  the  particular  form  of  these  en- 
actments, I  am  willing  to  take  them,  in  the  belief  that  they  will 
answer  an  essentially  important  and  necessary  purpose. 

It  is  now  my  painful  duty  to  take  notice  of  another  part  of 
the  bill,  which  I  think  in  the  highest  degree  objectionable  and 
unreasonable;  I  mean  the  extraordinary  augmentation  of  the 
duty  on  hemp.  I  cannot  well  conceive  any  thing  more  unwise 
or  ill-judged  than  this  appears  to  me  to  be.  The  duty  is  already 
thirty-five  dollars  per  ton ;  and  the  bill  proposes  a  progressive 
increase  till  it  shall  reach  sixty  dollars.  This  will  be  absolutely 
oppressive  on  the  shipping  interest,  the  great  consumers  of  the 
article.  When  this  duty  shall  have  reached  its  maximum,  it 
will  create  an  annual  charge  of  at  least  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  falling  not  on  the  aggregate  of  the  commercial  interest, 
but  on  the  ship-owner.  It  is  a  very  unequal  burden.  The  nav- 
igation of  the  country  has  already  a  hard  struggle  to  sustain 
itself  against  foreign  competition;  and  it  is  singular  enough,  that 
this  interest,  which  is  already  so  severely  tried,  which  pays  so 
much  in  duties  on  hemp,  duck,  and  iron,  and  which  it  is  now 


244  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF. 

proposed  to  put  under  new  burdens,  is  the  only  interest  which  is 
subject  to  a  direct  tax  by  a  law  of  Congress.  The  tonnage  duty 
is  such  a  tax.  If  this  bill  should  pass  in  its  present  form,  I  shall 
think  it  my  duty,  at  the  earliest  suitable  opportunity,  to  bring 
forward  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  tonnage  duty.  It  amounts, 
I  think,  to  a  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  dollars  a  year;  -and 
Us  removal  will  be  due  in  all  justice  to  the  ship-owner,  if  ht  is 
to  be  made  subject  to  a  new  taxation  on  hemp  and  iron. 

But,  objectionable  as  this  tax  is,  from  its  severe  pressure  on  a 
particular  interest,  and  that  at  present  a  depressed  interest,  there 
are  still  further  grounds  of  dissatisfaction  with  it.  It  is  not  cal- 
culated to  effect  the  object  intended  by  it.  If  that  object  be  the 
increase  of  the  sale  of  the  dew-rotted  American  hemp,  the  in- 
creased  duty  will  have  little  tendency  to  produce  that  result; 
because  such  hemp  is  so  much  lower  in  price  than  imported 
hemp,  that  it  must  be  already  used  for  such  purposes  as  it  is  fit 
for.  It  is  said  to  be  selling  for  one  hundred  and  twenty  dollars 
per  ton ;  while  the  imported  hemp  commands  two  hundred  and 
seventy  dollars.  The  proposed  duty,  therefore,  cannot  materially 
assist  the  sale  of  American  hemp  of  this  quality  and  description. 

But  the  main  reason  given  for  the  increase  is  the  encourage- 
ment of  American  water-rotted  hemp.  Doubtless,  this  is  an 
important  object;  but  I  have  seen  nothing  to  satisfy  me  that  it 
can  be  obtained  by  means  like  this.  At  present  there  is  pro- 
duced in  the  country  no  considerable  quantity  of  water-rotted 
hemp.  It  is  problematical,  at  best,  whether  it  can  be  produced 
under  any  encouragement.  The  hemp  may  be  grown,  doubtless, 
in  various  parts  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  in  any  country 
in  the  world ;  but  the  process  of  preparing  it  for  use,  by  water- 
rotting,  I  believe  to  be  more  difficult  and  laborious  than  is  gen- 
erally thought  among  us.  I  incline  to  think,  that,  happily  for 
us,  labor  is  in  too  much  demand,  and  commands  too  high  prices, 
to  allow  this  process  to  be  carried  on  profitably.  Other  objec- 
tions, also,  beside  the  amount  of  labor  required,  may,  perhaps, 
be  found  to  exist,  in  climate,  and  in  the  effects  liable  to  be  pro- 
duced on  health  in  warm  countries  by  the  nature  of  the  process. 
But  whether  there  be  foundation  for  these  suggestions  or  not, 
the  fact  still  is,  that  we  do  not  produce  the  article.  It  cannot, 
at  present,  be  had  at  any  price.  To  augment  the  duty,  there- 
fore, on  foreign  hemp,  can  only  have  the  effect  of  compelling 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF.  245 

the  consumer  to  pay  so  much  more  money  into  the  treasury. 
The  proposed  increase,  then,  is  doubly  objectionable ;  first,  be- 
cause it  creates  a  charge  not  to  be  borne  equally  by  the  whole 
country,  but  a  new  and  heavy  charge,  to  be  borne  exclusively  by 
one  particular  interest ;  and,  second,  because  that,  of  the  money 
raised  by  this  charge,  little  or  none  goes  to  accomplish  the  pro- 
fessed object,  by  aiding  the  hemp-grower;  but  the  whole,  or 
nearly  the  whole,  falls  into  the  treasury.  Thus  the  effect  will 
be  in  no  way  proportioned  to  the  cause,  and  the  advantage  ob- 
tained by  some  not  at  all  equal  to  the  hardship  imposed  on 
others.  While  one  interest  will  suffer  much,  the  other  interest 
will  gain  little  or  nothing. 

I  am  quite  willing  to  make  a  thorough  and  fair  experiment, 
on  the  subject  of  water-rotted  hemp ;  but  I  wish  at  the  same 
time  to  do  this  in  a  manner  that  shall  not  oppress  individuals, 
or  particular  classes.  I  intend,  therefore,  to  move  an  amend- 
ment, which  will  consist  in  striking  out  so  much  of  the  bill  as 
raises  the  duty  on  hemp  higher  than  it  is  at  present,  and  in 
inserting  a  clause,  making  it  the  duty  of  the  navy  department 
to  purchase,  for  the  public  service,  American  water-rotted  hemp, 
whenever  it  can  be  had  of  a  suitable  quality ;  provided  it  can  be 
purchased  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  by  more  than  twenty  per 
cent,  the  current  price  of  imported  hemp  of  the  same  quality. 
If  this  amendment  should  be  adopted,  the  ship-owner  would 
have  no  reason  to  complain,  as  the  price  of  the  article  would 
not  be  enhanced  to  him;  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  hemp- 
grower  who  shall  try  the  experiment  will  be  made  sure  of  a  cer- 
tain market,  and  a  high  price.  The  existing  duty  of  thirty-five 
dollars  per  ton  will  still  remain  to  be  borne  by  the  ship-owner. 
The  twenty  per  cent,  advance  on  the  price  of  imported  hemp 
will  be  equal  to  fifty  dollars  per  ton;  the  aggregate  will  be 
eighty-five  dollars ;  and  this,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  a  liberal 
and  effective  provision,  and  will  secfure  every  thing  which  can  be 
reasonably  desired  by  the  hemp-grower  in  the  most  ample  man- 
ner. 

But  if  the  bill  should  become  a  law,  and  go  into  operation  in 
its  present  shape,  this  duty  on  hemp  is  likely  to  defeat  its  own 
object  in  another  way.  Very  intelligent  persons  entertain  the 
opinion,  that  the  consequence  of  this  high  duty  will  be  such, 
that  American  vessels  engaged  in  foreign  commerce  will,  to  a 
21* 


246  SECOND  SPEECH   ON  THE  TARIFF. 

great  extent,  supply  themselves  with  cordage  abroad.  This,  of 
course,  will  diminish  the  consumption  at  home,  and  thus  injure 
the  hemp-grower,  and  at  the  same  time  the  manufacturer  of 
cordage.  Again,  there  may  be  reason  to  fear  that,  as  the  duty  is 
not  raised  on  cordage  manufactured  abroad,  such  cordage  may 
be  imported  in  greater  or  less  degree  in  the  place  of  the  un- 
manufactured article.  Whatever  view  we  take,  therefore,  of 
this  hemp  duty,  it  appears  to  me  altogether  objectionable. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  protection  which  the  navigation 
of  the  country  has  received  from  the  discriminating  duties  on 
tonnage,  and  the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  the  coasting  trade.  In 
my  opinion,  neither  of  these  measures  has  materially  sustained 
the  shipping  interest  of  the  United  States.  I  do  not  concur  in 
the  sentiments  on  that  point  quoted  from  Dr.  Seybert's  statistical 
work.  Dr.  Seybert  was  an  intelligent  and  worthy  man,  and 
compiled  a  valuable  book ;  but  he  was  engaged  in  public  life  at 
a  time  when  it  was  more  fashionable  than  it  has  since  become, 
to  ascribe  efficacy  to  discriminating  duties.  The  shipping  inter- 
est in  this  country  has  made  its  way  by  its  own  enterprise.  By 
its  own  vigorous  exertion  it  spread  itself  over  the  seas,  and  by 
the  same  exertion  it  still  holds  its  place  there.  It  seems  idle  to 
talk  of  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  discriminating  duties,  when 
they  operate  against  us  on  one  side  of  the  ocean  quite  as  much 
as  they  operate  for  us  on  the  other.  To  suppose  that  two  na- 
tions, having  intercourse  with  each  other,  can  secure  each  to 
itself  a  decided  advantage  in  that  intercourse,  is  little  less  than 
absurdity;  and  this  is  the  absurdity  of  discriminating  duties. 
Still  less  reason  is  there  for  the  idea,  that  our  own  ship-owners 
hold  the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  the  coasting  trade  only  by  vir- 
tue of  the  law  which  prevents  foreigners  from  sharing  it.  Look 
at  the  rate  of  freights.  Look  at  the  manner  in  which  this  coast- 
ing trade  is  conducted  by  our  own  vessels,  and  the  competition 
which  subsists  between  them.  In  a  majority  of  instances,  prob- 
ably, these  vessels  are  owned,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  those  who 
navigate  them.  These  owners  are  at  home  at  one  end  of  the 
voyage ;  and  repairs  and  supplies  are  thus  obtained  in  the  cheap- 
est and  most  economical  manner.  No  foreign  vessels  would  be 
able  to  partake  in  this  trade,  even  by  the  aid  of  preferences  and 
bounties. 

The  shipping  interest  of  this  country  requires  only  an  open 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON  THE   TARIFF.  247 

field,  and  a  fair  chance.  Every  thing  else  it  will  do  for  itself.  But 
it  has  not  a  fair  chance  while  it  is  so  severely  taxed  in  what- 
ever enters  into  the  necessary  expense  of  building  and  equip- 
ment. In  this  respect,  its  rivals  have  advantages  w,hich  may  in 
the  end  prove  to  be  decisive  against  us.  I  entreat  the  Senate 
to  examine  and  weigh  this  subject,  and  not  go  on,  blindly,  to 
unknown  consequences.  The  English  ship-owner  is  carefully 
regarded  by  his  government,  and  aided  and  succored,  whenever 
and  wherever  necessary,  by  a  sharp-sighted  policy.  Both  he 
and  the  American  ship-owner  obtain  their  hemp  from  Russia. 
But  observe  the  difference.  The  duty  on  hernp  in  England  is 
but  twenty-one  dollars ;  .here,  it  is  proposed  to  make  it  sixty, 
notwithstanding  its  cost  here  is  necessarily  enhanced  by  an 
additional  freight,  proportioned  to  a  voyage  longer  than  that 
which  brings  it  to  the  English  consumer,  by  the  whole  breadth 
of  the  Atlantic. 

Sir,  I  wish  to  invoke  the  Senate's  attention,  earnestly,  to  the 
subject ;  I  would  awaken  the  regard  of  the  whole  government, 
more  and  more,  not  only  on  this  but  on  all  occasions,  to  this 
great  national  interest ;  an  interest  which  lies  at  the  very  foun- 
dation both  of  our  commercial  prosperity  and  our  naval  achieve- 
ment. 


FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION/ 


ON  the  29th  of  December,  1829,  a  resolution  was  moved  by  Mr. 
Foot,  one  of  the  Senators  from  Connecticut,  which,  after  the  addition  of 
the  last  clause  by  amendment,  stood  as  follows  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be  instructed  to  in- 
quire and  report  the  quantity  of  public  lands  remaining  unsold  within 
each  State  and  Territory.  And  whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit  for  a 
certain  period  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  only  as  have 
heretofore  been  offered  for  sale  and  are  now  subject  to  entry  at  the 
minimum  price.  And,  also,  whether  the  office  of  Surveyor-General, 
and  some  of  the  land  offices,  may  not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to 
the  public  interest ;  or  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt  measures  to 
hasten  the  sales  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  the  public 
lands." 

On  the  18th  of  January,  Mr.  Benton  of  Missouri  addressed  the  Senate 
on  the  subject  of  this  resolution.  On  the  19th,  Mr.  Hayne  of  South 
Carolina  spoke  at  considerable  length.  After  he  had  concluded,  Mr. 
Webster  rose  to  reply,  but  gave  way  on  motion  of  Mr.  Benton  for  an 
adjournment. 

On  the  20th,  Mr.  Webster  spoke  as  follows  :  — 

NOTHING  has  been  farther  from  my  intention  than  to  take  any 
part  in  the  discussion  of  this  resolution.  It  proposes  only  an  in- 
quiry on  a  subject  of  much  importance,  and  one  in  regard  to 
which  it  might  strike  the  mind  of  the  mover  and  of  other  gentle- 
men that  inquiry  and  investigation  would  be  useful.  Although 
I  am  one  of  those  who  do  not  perceive  any  particular  utility  in 
instituting  the  inquiry,  I  have,  nevertheless,  not  seen  that  harm 
would  be  likely  to  result  from  adopting  the  resolution.  Indeed, 
it  gives  no  new  powers,  and  hardly  imposes  any  new  duty  on 

•  Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  20th  of  January,  1830. 


FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  249 

the  committee.  All  that  the  resolution  proposes  should  oe  done, 
the  committee  is  quite  competent,  without  the  resolution,  to  do 
by  virtue  of  its  ordinary  powers.  But,  Sir,  although  I  have  felt 
quite  indifferent  about  the  passing  of  the  resolution,  yet  opinions 
were  expressed  yesterday  on  the  general  subject  of  the  public 
lands,  and  on  some  other  subjects,  by  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  so  widely  different  from  my  own,  that  I  am  not 
willing  to  let  the  occasion  pass  without  some  reply.  If  I  deemed 
the  resolution  as  originally  proposed  hardly  necessary,  still  less  do 
I  think  it  either  necessary  or  expedient  to  adopt  it,  since  a  sec- 
ond branch  has  been  added  to  it  to-day.  By  this  second  branch, 
the  committee'is  to  be  instructed  to  inquire  whether  it  be  expedi-  v 
ent  to  adopt  measures  to  hasten  the  sales,  and  extend  more  rap- 
idly the  surveys  of  the  public  lands. 

Now  it  appears,  Mr.  President,  that,  in  forty  years,  we  have 
sold  no  more  than  about  twenty  millions  of  acres  of  public 
lands.  The  annual  sales  do  not  now  exceed,  and  never  have 
exceeded,  one  million  of  acres.  A  million  a  year  is,  according 
to  our  experience,  as  much  as  the  increase  of  population  can 
bring  into  settlement.  And  it  appears,  also,  that  we  have,  at 
this  moment,  surveyed  and  in  the  market,  ready  for  sale,  two 
hundred  and  ten  millions  of  acres,  or  thereabouts.  All  this  vast 
mass,  at  this  moment,  lies  on  our  hands  for  mere  want  of  pur- 
chasers. ;  Can  any  man,  looking  to  the  real  interests  of  the  coun- 
try and  the  people,  seriously  think  of  inquiring  whether  we  ought 
not  to  hasten  the  public  surveys  still  faster,  and  to  bring,  still 
more  and  more  rapidly,  other  vast  quantities  into  the  market  ? 
The  truth  is,  that,  rapidly  as  population  has  increased,  the  sur- 
veys have,  nevertheless,  outrun  our  wants.  There  are  more 
lands  than  purchasers.  They  are  now  sold  at  low  prices,  and 
taken  up  as  fast  as  the  increase  of  people  furnishes  hands  to 
take  them  up.  It  is  obvious,  that  no  artificial  regulation,  no 
forcing  of  sales,  no  giving  away  of  the  lands  even,  can  produce 
any  great  and  sudden  augmentation  of  population.  The  ratio 
of  increase,  though  great,  has  its  bounds.  Hands  for  labor  are 
multiplied  only  at  a  certain  rate.  The  lands  cannot  be  settled 
but  by  settlers,  nor  faster  than  settlers  can  be  found.  A  system, 
if  now  adopted,  of  forcing  sales,  at  whatever  prices,  may  have 
the  effect  of  throwing  large  quantities  into  the  hands  of  individ- 
uals, who  would  in  this  way,  in  time,  become  themselves  com- 


250  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOTS  RESOLUTION. 

petitors  with  the  government  in  the  sale  of  land.  [  My  own 
opinion  has  uniformly  been,  that  the  public  lands  should  be 
offered  freely,  and  at  low  prices ;  so  as  to  encourage  settlement 
and  cultivation  as  rapidly  as  the  increasing  population  of  the 
country  is  competent  to  extend  settlement  and  cultivation.  )  Ev- 
ery actual  settler  should  be  able  to  buy  good  land,  at  a  cheap 
rate ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  speculation  by  individuals  on  a  large 
scale  should  not  be  encouraged,  nor  should  the  value  of  all 
lands,  sold  and  unsold,  be  reduced  to  nothing,  by  throwing  new 
and  vast  quantities  into  the  market  at  prices  merely  nominal.) 

I  now  proceed,  Sir,  to  some  of  the  opinions  expressed  by  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  Two  or  three  topics  were 
touched  by  him,  in  regard  to  which  he  expressed  sentiments  in 
which  I  do  not  at  all  concur. 

In  the  first  place,  Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  spoke  of  the 
whole  course  and  'policy  of  the  government  towards  those  who 
have  purchased  and  settled  the  public  lands,  and  seemed  to 
thftik  this  policy  wrong.  He  held  it  to  have  been,  from  the  first, 
hard  and  rigorous ;  he  was  of  opinion,  that  the  United  States 
had  acted  towards  those  who  had  subdued  the  Western  wilder- 
ness in  the  spirit  of  a  step-mother;  that  the  public  domain  had 
been  improperly  regarded  as  a  source  of  revenue ;  and  that  wre 
had  rigidly  compelled  payment  for  that  which  ought  to  have  been 
given  away.  He  said  we  ought  to  have  imitated  the  example 
of  other  governments,  which  had  acted  on  a  much  more  liberal 
system  than  ours,  in  planting  colonies.  He  dwelt,  particularly, 
upon  the  settlement  of  America  by  colonies  from  Europe ;  and 
reminded  us,  that  their  governments  had  not  exacted  from  those 
colonies  payment  for  the  soil.  In  reference  to  them,  he  said,  it 
had  been  thought  that  the  conquest  o(  the  wilderness  was  itself 
an  equivalent  for  the  soil,  and  he  lamented  that  we  had  not  fol- 
lowed that  example,  and  pursued  the  same  liberal  course  towards 
our  own  emigrants  to  the  West. 

Now,  Sir,  I  deny,  altogether,  that  there  has  .been  any  thing 
harsh  or  severe  in  the  policy  of  the  government  towards  the  new 
States  of  the  West.  On  the  contrary,  I  maintain  that  it  has 
uniformly  pursued  towards  those  States  a  liberal  and  enlight- 
ened system,  such  as  its  own  duty  allowed  and  required,  and 
such  as  their  interest  and  welfare  demanded.  The  government 


FIRST   SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION  251 

has  been  no  step-mother  to  the  new  States.  She  has  not  been 
careless  of  their  interests,  nor  deaf  to  their  requests ;  but  from 
the  first  moment  when  the  territories  which  now  form  those 
States  were  ceded  to  the  Union,  down  to  the  time  in  which  I  am 
now  speaking,  it  has  been  the  invariable  object  of  the  govern- 
ment, to  dispose  of  the  soil  according  to  the  true  spirit  of  the 
obligation  under  which  it  received  it ;  to  hasten  its  settlement 
and  cultivation,  as  far  and  as  fast  as  practicable ;  and  to  rear  the 
new  communities  into  new  and  independent  States,  at  the  ear- 
liest moment  of  their  being  able,  by  their  numbers,  to  form  a 
regular  government. 

I  do  not  admit,  Sir,  that  the  analogy  to  which  the  gentleman 
refers  us  is  just,  or  that  the  cases  are  at  all  similar.     There  is 

•no  resemblance  between  the  cases,  upon  which  a  statesman  can 
found  an  argument.  The  original  North  American  colonists 
either  fled  from  Europe,  like  our  New  England  ancestors,  to 
avoid  persecution,  or  came  hither  at  their  own  charges,  and  often 
at  the  ruin  of  their  fortunes,  as  private  adventurers.  Generally 
speaking,  they  derived  neither  succor  nor  protection  from  their 
governments  at  home.  Wide,  indeed,  is  the  difference  between 
those  cases  and  ours.  From  the  very  origin  of  the  government, 
these  Western  lands,  and  the  just  protection  of  those  who  had 
settled  or  should  settle  on  them,  have  been  the  leading  objects  in 
our  policy,  and  have  led  to  expenditures,  both  of  blood  and  treas- 
ure, not  inconsiderable;  not,  indeed,  exceeding  the  importance 
of  the  object,  and  not  yielded  grudgingly ;  but  yet  entitled 
to  be  regarded  as  great,  though  necessary  sacrifices,  made  for 
high,  proper  ends.  The  Indian  title  has  been  extinguished  at 
the  expense  of  many  millions.  Is  that  nothing  ?  There  is  still 
a.  much  more  material  consideration.  These  colonists,  if  we 

.  are  to  call  them  so,  in  passing  the  Alleghanies,  did  not  pass  be- 
yond the  care  and  protection  of  their  own  government.  Where- 
ever  they  went,  the  public  arm  was  still  stretched  over  them. 
A  parental  government  at  home  was  still  ever  mindful  of  their 
condition  and  their  wants,  and  nothing  was  spared  which  a 
just  sense  of  their  necessities  required.  Is  it  forgotten  that  it 
was  one  of  the  most  arduous  duties  of  the  government,  in  its 
earliest  years,  to  defend  the  frontiers  against  the  Northwestern 
Indians  ?  Are  the  sufferings  and  misfortunes  under  Harmar  and 
St.  Clair  not  worthy  to  be  remembered  ?  Do  the  occurrences 


252  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

connected  with  these  military  efforts  show  an  unfeeling  neglect 
of  Western  interests  ?  And  here,  Sir,  what  becomes  of  the  gen- 
tleman's analogy  ?  What  English  armies  accompanied  our  an- 
cestors to  clear  the  forests  of  a  barbarous  foe  ?  What  treasures 
of  the  exchequer  were  expended  in  buying  up  the  original  title 
to  the  soil?  What  governmental  arm  held  its  aegis  over  our 
fathers'  heads,  as  they  pioneered  their  way  in  the  wilderness  ? 
Sir,  it  was  not  till  General  Wayne's  victory,  in  1794,  that  it 
could  be  said  we  had  conquered  the  savages.  It  was  not  till 
that  period  that  the  government  could  have  considered  itself  as 
having  established  an  entire  ability  to^  protect  those  who  should 
undertake  the  conquest  of  the  wilderness. 

And  here,  Sir,  at  the  epoch  of  1794,  let  us  pause  and  survey 
the  scene,  as  it  actually  existed  thirty-five  years  ago.  Let  us 
look  back  and  behold  it.  Over  all  that  is  now  Ohio  there  then 
stretched  one  vast  wilderness,  unbroken  except  by  two  small 
spots  of  civilized  culture,  the  one  at  Marietta  and  the  other  at 
Cincinnati.  At  these  little  openings,  hardly  each  a  pin's  point 
upon  the  map,  the  arm  of  the  frontier-man  had  levelled  the  forest 
and  let  in  the  sun.  These  little  patches  of  earth,  themselves 
almost  overshadowed  by  the  overhanging  boughs  of  that  wilder- 
ness which  had  stood  and  perpetuated  itself,  from  century  to 
century,  ever  since  the  creation,  were  all  that  had  then  been  ren- 
dered verdant  by  the  hand  of  man.  In  an  extent  of  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  square  miles,  no  other  surface  of  smiling 
green  attested  the  presence  of  civilization.  The  hunter's  path 
crossed  mighty  rivers,  flowing  in  solitary  grandeur,  whose  sources 
lay  in  remote  and  unknown  regions  of  the  wilderness.  It  struck 
upon  the  north  on  a  vast  inland  sea,  over  which  the  wintry 
tempests  raged  as  on  the  ocean ;  all  around  was  bare  creation. 
It  was  fresh,  untouched,  unbounded,  magnificent  wilderness. 

And,  Sir,  what  is  it  now?  Is  it  imagination  only,  or  can  it 
possibly  be  fact,  that  presents  such  a  change  as  surprises  and 
astonishes  us  when  we  turn  our  eyes  to  what  Ohio  now  is  ?  Is 
it  reality,  or  a  dream,  that,  in  so  short  a  period  even  as  thirty-five 
years,  there  has  sprung  up,  on  the  same  surface,  an  independent 
State  with  a  million  of  people  ?  A  million  of  inhabitants !  an 
amount  of  population  greater  than  that  of  all  the  cantons  of 
Switzerland ;  equal  to  one  third  of  all  the  people  of  the  United 
States  when  they  undertook  to  accomplish  their  independence. 


FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  253 

This  new  member  of  the  republic  has  already  left  far  behind  her 
a  majority  of  the  old  States.  She  is  now  by  the  side  of  Vir- 
ginia and  Pennsylvania ;  and  in  point  of  numbers  will  shortly 
admit  no  equal  but  New  York  herself.  If,  Sir,  we  may  judge 
of  measures  by  their  results,  what  lessons  do  these  facts  read  us 
upon  the  policy  of  the  government?  What  inferences  do  they 
luthorixe  upon  the  general  question  of  kindness  or  unkindness  ? 
What  convictions  do  they  enforce  as  to  the  wisdom  and  ability, 
on  the  one  hand,  or  the  folly  and  incapacity,  on  the  other,  of  our 
general  administration  of  Western  affairs  ?  Sir,  does  it  not  re- 
quire some  portion  of  self-respect  in  us  to  imagine,  that,  if  our 
light  had  shone  on  the  path  of  government,  if  our  wisdom  could 
have  been  consulted  in  its  measures,  a  more  rapid  advance  to 
strength  and  prosperity  would  have  been  experienced?  For  my 
own  part,  while  I  am  struck  with  wonder  at  the  success,  I  also 
look  with  admiration  at  the  wisdom'  and  foresight  which  origi- 
nally arranged  and  prescribed  the  system  for  the  settlement  of 
the  public  domain.  Its  operation  has  been,  without  a  moment's 
interruption,  to  push  the  settlement  of  the  Western  country  to 
the  extent  of  our  utmost  means.  

But,  Sir,  to  return  to  the  remarks  of  the  honorable  member 
from  South  Carolina.  He  says  that  Congress  has  sold  these 
lands  and  put  the  money  into  the  treasury,  while  other  govern- 
ments, acting  in  a  more  liberal  spirit,  gave  away  their  lands ; 
and  that  we  ought  also  to  have  given  ours  away.  I  shall  not 
stop  to  state  an  account  between  our  revenues  derived  from  land, 
and  our  expenditures  in  Indian  treaties  and  Indian  wars.  But 
I  must  refer  the  honorable  gentleman  to  the  origin  of  our  own 
title  to  the  soil  of  these  territories,  and  remind  him  that  we  re- 
ceived them  on  conditions  and  under  trusts  which  would  have 
been  violated  by  giving  the  soil  away.  For  compliance  with 
those  conditions,  and  the  just  execution  of  those  trusts,  the  public 
faith  was  solemnly  pledged.  The  public  lands  of  the  United 
States  have  been  derived  from  four  principal  sources.  First, 
cessions  made  to  the  United  States  by  individual  States,  on 
the  recommendation  or  request  of  the  old  Congress ;  secondly, 
the  compact  with  Georgia,  in  1802;  thirdly,  the  purchase  of 
Louisiana,  in  1803 ;  fourthly,  the  purchase  of  Florida,  in  1819. 
Of  the  first  class,  the  most  important  was  the  cession  by  Vir- 
ginia of  all  her  right  and  title,  as  well  of  soil  as  jurisdiction,  to  all 

VOL.  in.  22 


254  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

the  territory  within  the  limits  of  her  charter  lying  to  the  north- 
west of  the  Ohio  River.  It  may  not  be  ill-timed  to  recur  to  the 
causes  and  occasions  of  this  and  the  other  similar  grants. 

When  the  war  of  the  Revolution  broke  out,  a  great  difference 
existed  in  different  States  in  the  proportion  between  people  and 
territory.  The  Northern  and  Eastern  States,  with  very  small 
surfaces,  contained  comparatively  a  thick  population,  and  there 
was  generally  within  their  limits  no  great  quantity  of  waste 
lands  belonging  to  the  government,  or  the  crown  of  England. 
On  the  contrary,  there  were  in  the  Southern  States,  in  Virginia 
and  in  Georgia,  for  example,  extensive  public  domains,  wholly 
unsettled,  and  belonging  to  the  crown.  As  these  possessions 
would  necessarily  fall  from  the  crown  in  the  event  of  a  prosper- 
ous issue  of  the  war,  it  was  insisted  that  they  ought  to  devolve 
on  the  United  States,  for  the  good  of  the  whole.  The  war,  it 
•was  argued,  was  undertaken  and  carried  on  at  the  common  ex- 
pense of  all  the  colonies ;  its  benefits,  if  successful,  ought  also  to 
be  common ;  and  the  property  of  the  common  enemy,  when 
vanquished,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  the  general  acquisition  of 
all.  While  yet  the  war  was  raging,  it  was  contended  that  Con- 
gress ought  to  have  the  power  to  dispose  of  vacant  and  un- 
patented  lands,  commonly  called  crown  lands,  for  defraying  the 
expenses  of  the  war,  and  for  other  public  and  general  purposes. 
"  Reason  and  justice,"  said  the  Assembly  of  New  Jersey,  in 
1778,  "  must  decide  that  the  property  which  existed  in  the 
crown  of  Great  Britain  previous  to  the  present  Revolution 
ought  now  to  belong  to  the  Congress,  in  trust  for  the  use  and 
benefit  of  the  United  States.  They  have  fought  and  bled  for  it, 
in  proportion  to  their  respective  abilities,  and  therefore  the  re- 
ward ought  not  to  be  predilectionally  distributed.  Shall  such 
States  as  are  shut  out  by  situation  from  availing  themselves  of 
the  least  advantage  from  this  quarter  be  left  to  sink  under  an 
enormous  debt,  whilst  others  are  enabled  in  a  short  period  to  re- 
place all  their  expenditures  from  the  hard  earnings  of  the  whole 
confederacy?" 

Moved  by  considerations  and  appeals  of  this  kind,  Congress 
took  up  the  subject,  and  in  September,  1780,  recommended  to 
the  several  States  in  the  Union  having  claims  to  Western  terri- 
tory, to  make  liberal  cessions  of  a  portion  thereof  to  the  United 
States;  and  on  the  10th  of  October,  1780,  Congress  resolved. 


FIRST   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  255 

that  any  lands  so  ceded,  in  pursuance  of  their  preceding  recom- 
mendation, should  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit  of  the 
United  States ;  should  be  settled  and  formed  into  distinct  repub- 
lican States,  to  become  members  of  the  Federal  Union,  with 
the  same  rights  of  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence  as 
the  other  States ;  and  that  the  lands  should  be  granted,  or  set- 
tled, at  such  times,  and  under  such  regulations,  as  should  be 
agreed  on  by  Congress.  Again,  in  September,  1783,  Congress 
passed  another  resolution,  setting  forth  the  conditions  on  which 
cessions  from  States  should  be  received ;  and  in  October  follow- 
ing, Virginia  made  her  cession,  reciting  the  resolution,  or  act,  of 
September  preceding,  and  then  transferring  to  the  United  States 
her  title  to  her  Northwestern  territory,  upon  the  express  condi- 
tion that  the  lands  so  ceded  should  be  considered  as  a  common 
fund  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  such  of  the  United  States  as  had 
become  or  should  become  members  of  the  confederation,  Vir- 
ginia inclusive,  and  should  be  faithfully  and  bond  fide  disposed 
of  for  that  purpose,  and  for  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatever. 
The  grants  from  other  States  were  on  similar  conditions.  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Connecticut  both  had  claims  to  Western  lands, 
and  both  relinquished  them  to  the  United  States  in  the  same 
manner.  These  grants  were  all  made  on  three  substantial  con- 
ditions  or  trusts.  First,  that  the  ceded  territories  should  be 
formed  into  States,  and  admitted  in  due  time  into  the  Union, 
with  all  the  rights  belonging  to  other  States ;  secondly,  that  the 
lands  should  form  a  common  fund,  to  be  disposed  of  for  the  gen- 
eral benefit  of  all  the  States ;  and  thirdly,  that  they  should  be 
sold  and  settled,  at  such  time  and  in  such  manner  as  Congress 
should  direct. 

Now,  Sir,  it  is  plain  that  Congress  never  has  been,  and  is  not 
now,  at  liberty  to  disregard  these  solemn  conditions.  For  the 
fulfilment  of  all  these  trusts,  the  public  faith  was,  and  is,  fully 
pledged.  How,  then,  would  it  have  been  possible  for  Congress, 
if  it  had  been  so  disposed,  to  give  away  these  public  lands? 
How  could  it  have  followed  the  example  of  other  goveri. 
ments,  if  there  had  been  such,  and  considered  the  conquest  ol 
the  wilderness  an  equivalent  compensation  for  the  soil  ?  The 
States  had  looked  to  this  territory,  perhaps  too  sanguinely,  as  a 
fund  out  of  which  means  were  to  come  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  war.  It  had  been  received  as  a  fund,  as  a  fund  Congress 


256  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

had  bound  itself  to  apply  it.  To  have  given  it  away,  would 
have  defeated  all  the  objects  which  Congress  and  particular 
States  had  had  in  view  in  asking  and  obtaining  the  cession, 
and  would  have  plainly  violated  the  conditions  which  the  ceding 
States  attached  to  their  own  grants. 

The  gentleman  admits,  that  the  lands  cannot  be  given  away 
until  the  national  debt  is  paid ;  because  to  a  part  of  that  debt 
they  stand  pledged.  But  this  is  not  the 'original  pledge.  There 
is,  so  to  speak,  an  earlier  mortgage.  Before  the  debt  was  funded, 
at  the  moment  of  the  cession  of  the  lands,  and  by  the  very  terms 
of  that  cession,  every  State  in  the  Union  obtained  an  interest  in 
them,  as  in  a  common  fund.  Congress  has  uniformly  adhered  to 
this  condition.  It  has  proceeded  to  sell  the  lands,  and  to  realize 
as  much  from  them  as  was  compatible  with  the  other  trusts 
created  by  the  same  deeds  of  cession.  One  of  these  deeds  of 
trust,  as  I  have  already  said,  was,  that  the  lands  should  be  sold 
and  settled,  at  such  time  and  in  such  manner  as  Congress 
shall  direct.  The  government  has  always  felt  itself  bound,  in 
this  respect,  to  exercise  its  own  best  judgment,  and  not  to 
transfer  the  discretion  to  others.  It  has  not  felt  itself  at  liberty 
to  dispose  of  the  soil,  therefore,  in  large  masses  to  individuals, 
thus  leaving  to  them  the  time  and  manner  of  settlement.  It 
had  stipulated  to  use  its  own  judgment.  If,  for  instance,  in 
order  to  rid  itself  of  the  trouble  of  forming  a  system  for  the  sale 
of  those  lands,  and  going  into  detail,  it  had  sold  the  whole  of 
what  is  now  Ohio,  in  one  mass,  to  individuals  or  companies,  it 
would  clearly  have  departed  from  its  just  obligations.  And  who 
can  now  tell,  or  conjecture,  how  great  would  have  been  the  evil 
of  such  a  course  ?  Who  can  say  what  mischiefs  would  have 
ensued,  if  Congress  had  thrown  these  territories  into  the  hands 
of  private  speculation  ?  Or  who,  on  the  other  hand,  can  now 
foresee  what  the  event  would  be,  should  the  government  depart 
from  the  same  wise  course  hereafter,  and,  not  content  with  such 
gradual  absorption  of  the  public  lands  as  the  natural  growth  of 
our  population  may  accomplish,  should  force  great  portions  of 
tbem,  at  nominal  or  very  low  prices,  into  private  hands,  to  be 
sold  and  settled  as  and  when  such  holders  might  think  would  be 
most  for  their  own  interests  ? 

Hitherto,  Sir,  I  maintain,  Congress  has  acted  wisely,  and  done 
its  duty  on  this  subject.     I  hope  it  will  continue  to  do  it.     De- 


FIRST   SPEECH   ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  257 

parting  from  the  original  idea,  so  soon  as  it  was  found  practica- 
ble and  convenient,  of  selling  by  townships,  Congress  has  dis- 
posed of  the  soil  in  smaller  and  still  smaller  portions,  till  at 
length  it  sells  in  parcels  of  no  more  than  eighty  acres ;  thus  put- 
ting it  into  the  power  of  every  man  in  the  country,  however 
poor,  but  who  has  health  and  strength,  to  become  a  freeholder 
if  he  desires,  not  of  barren  acres,  but  of  rich  and  fertile  soil. 
The  government  has  performed  all  the  conditions  of  the  grant. 
While  it  has  regarded  the  public  lands  as  a  common  fund,  and 
has  sought  to  make  what  reasonably  could  be  made  of  them,  as 
a  source  of  revenue,  it  has  also  applied  its  best  wisdom  to  sell 
and  settle  them,  as  fast  and  as  happily  as  possible ;  and  when- 
soever numbers  would  warrant  it,  each  territory  has  been  suc- 
cessively admitted  into  the  Union,  with  all  the  rights  of  an  inde- 
pendent State. 

Is  there  then,  Sir,  I  ask,  any  ground  for  a  well-founded  charge 
of  hard  dealing?  for  any  just  accusation  of  negb'gence,  indiffer- 
ence, or  parsimony,  which  is  capable  of  being  sustained  against 
the  government  of  the  country  in  its  conduct  towards  the  new 
States  ?  I  think  there  is  not 

But  there  was  another  observation  of  the  honorable  member, 
which,  I  confessr  did  not  a  little  surprise  me.  As  a  reason  for 
wishing  to  get  rid  of  the  public  lands  as  soon  as  we  could,  and 
as  we  might,  the  honorable  gentleman  said  he  wanted  no  per- 
manent sources  of  income.  He  wished  to  see  the  time  when 
the  government  should  not  possess  a  shilling  of  permanent  reve- 
nue. If  he  could  speak  a  magical  word,  and  by  that  word  con- 
vert the  whole  Capitol  into  gold,  the  word  should  not  be  spoken. 
The  administration  of  a  fixed  revenue,  he  said,  only  consolidates 
the  government  and  corrupts  the  people !  Sir,  I  confess  I  heard 
these  sentiments  uttered  on  this  floor  not  without  deep  regret 
and  pain. 

I  am  aware  that  these  and  similar  opinions  are  espoused  by 
certain  persons  out  of  the  Capitol  and  out  of  this  government ; 
but  I  did  not  expect  so  soon  to  find  them  here.  Consolidation ! 
—  that  perpetual  cry  both  of  terror  and  delusion,  —  Consolida- 
tion !  Sir,  when  gentlemen  speak  of  the  effects  of  a  common 
fund,  belonging  to  all  the  States,  as  having  a  tendency  to  con- 
solidation, what  do  they  mean  ?  Do  they  mean,  or  can  they 
mean,  any  thing  more  than  that  the  union  of  the  States  will  be 
22* 


258  FIRST  SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

strengthened  by  whatever  continues  or  furnishes  inducements  to 
the  people  of  the  States  to  hold  together?  If  they  mean  merely 
this,  then,  no  doubt,  the  public  lands,  as  well  as  every  thing  else 
in  which  we  have  a  common  interest,  tend  to  consolidation ; 
and  to  this  species  of  consolidation  every  true  American  ought 
to  be  attached ;  it  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  strengthening 
the  Union  itself.  This  is  the  sense  in  which  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  use  the  word  consolidation,  and  in  this  sense  I 
adopt  and  cherish  it.  They  tell  us,  in  the  letter  submitting  the 
Constitution  to  the  consideration  of  the  country,  that,  "  In  all 
our  deliberations  on  this  subject,  we  kept  steadily  in  our  view 
that  which  appears  to  us  the  greatest  interest  of  every  true 
American,  the  consolidation  of  our  Union,  in  which  is  involved 
our  prosperity,  felicity,  safety,  perhaps  our  national  existence. 
This  important  consideration,  seriously  and  deeply  impressed  on 
our  minds,  led  each  State  in  the  Convention  to  be  less  rigid  on 
points  of  inferior  magnitude  than  might  have  been  otherwise 
expected." 

This,  Sir,  is  General  Washington's  consolidation.  This  is 
the  true,  constitutional  consolidation.  I  wish  to  see  no  new 
powers  drawn  to  the  general  government ;  but  I  confess  I  re- 
joice in  whatever  tends  to  strengthen  the  bond  that  unites  us, 
and  encourages  the  hope  that  our  Union  may  be  perpetual. 
And  therefore  I  cannot  but  feel  regret  at  the  expression  of  such 
opinions  as  the  gentleman  has  avowed,  because  I  think  their 
obvious  tendency  is  to  weaken  the  bond  of  our  connection.  I 
know  that  there  are  some  persons  in  the  part  of  the  country 
from  which  the  honorable  member  comes,  who  habitually  speak 
of  the  Union  in  terms  of  indifference,  or  even  of  disparage- 
ment. The  honorable  member  himself  is  not,  I  trust,  and  can 
never  be,  one  of  these.  They  significantly  declare,  that  it  ia 
time  to  calculate  the  value  of  the  Union ;  and  their  aim  seems 
to  be  to  enumerate,  and  to  magnify,  all  the  evils,  real  and  imagi- 
nary, which  the  government  under  the  Union  produces. 

The  tendency  of  all  these  ideas  and  sentiments  is  obviously 
to  bring  the  Union  into  discussion,  as  a  mere  question  of  present 
and  temporary  expediency ;  nothing  more  than  a  mere  matter 
of  profit  and  loss.  The  Union  is  to  be  preserved,  while  it  suits 
local  and  temporary  purposes  to  preserve  it;  and  to  be  sun- 
dered whenever  it  shall  be  found  to  thwart  such  purposes 


FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  259 

Union,  of  itself,  is  considered  by  the  disciples  of  this  school  as 
hardly  a  good.  It  is  only  regarded  as  a  possible  means  of  good ; 
or,  on  the  other  hand,  as  a  possible  means  of  evil.  They  cherish 
no  deep  and  fixed  regard  for  it,  flowing  from  a  thorough  convic- 
tion of  its  absolute  and  vital  necessity  to  our  welfare.  Sir,  I 
deprecate  and  deplore  this  tone  of  thinking  and  acting.  I  deem 
far  otherwise  of  the  union  of  the  States  ;  and  so  did  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  themselves.  What  they  said,  I  believe ; 
fully  and  sincerely  believe,  that  the  union  of  the  States  is  essen- 
tial to  the  prosperity  and  safety  of  the  States.  I  am  a  unionist, 
and,  in  this  sense,  a  national  republican.  I  would  strengthen 
the  ties  that  hold  us  together.  Far,  indeed,  in  my  wishes,  very 
far  distant  be  the  day,  when  our  associated  and  fraternal  stripes 
shall  be  severed  asunderr  and  when  that  happy  constellation 
under  which  we  have  risen  to  so  much  renown  shall  be  broken 
up,  and  sink,  star  after  star,  into  obscurity  and  night ! 

Among  other  things,  the  honorable  member  spoke  of  the  pub- 
lic debt.  To  that  he  holds  the  public  lands  pledged,  and  has 
expressed  his  usual  earnestness  for  its  total  discharge.  Sir,  I 
have  always  voted  for  every  measure  for  reducing  the  debt,  since 
I  have  been  in  Congress.  I  wished  it  paid  because  it  is  a  debt, 
and,  so  far,  is  a  charge  upon  the  industry  of  the  country  and  the 
finances  of  the  government.  But,  Sir,  I  have  observed,  that, 
whenever  the  subject  of  the  public  debt  is  introduced  into  the 
Senate,  a  morbid  sort  of  fervor  is  manifested  in  regard  to  it, 
which  I  have  been  sometimes  at  a  loss  to  understand.  The 
debt  is  not  now  large,  and  is  in  a  course  of  most  rapid  reduction. 
A  few  years  will  see  it  extinguished.  I  am  not  entirely  able  to 
persuade  myself  that  it  is  not  certain  supposed  incidental  ten- 
dencies and  effects  of  this  debt,  rather  than  its  pressure  and 
charge  as  a  debt,  that  cause  so  much  anxiety  to  get  rid  of  it 
Possibly  it  may  be  regarded  as  in  some  degree  a  tie,  holding  the 
different  parts  of  the  country  together,  by  considerations  of  mu- 
tual interest.  If  this  be  one  of  its  effects,  the  effect  itself  is,  in 
my  opinion,  not  to  be  lamented.  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood. 
I  would  not  continue  the  debt  for  the  sake  of  any  collateral  or 
consequential  advantage,  such  as  I  have  mentioned.  I  onlv 
mean  to  say,  that  that  consequence  itself  is  not  one  that  I  re- 
gret ;  at  the  same  time,  that,  if  there  are  others  who  would  or 
who  do  regret  it,  I  differ  from  them. 


260  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

As  I  have  already  remarked,  Sir,  it  was  one  among  the  rea- 
sons assigned  by  the  honorable  member  for  his  wish  to  be  rid  of 
the  public  lands  altogether,  that  the  public  disposition  of  them, 
and  the  revenues  derived  from  them,  tend  to  corrupt  the  people. 
This,  Sir,  I  confess,  passes  my  comprehension.  These  lands 
are  sold  at  public  auction,  or  taken  up  at  fixed  prices,  to  form 
farms  and  freeholds.  Whom  does  this  corrupt  ?  According  to 
the  system  of  sales,  a  fixed  proportion  is  everywhere  reserved, 
as  a  fund  for  education.  Does  education  corrupt?  Is  the 
schoolmaster  a  corrupter  of  youth  ?  the  spelling-book,  does  it 
break  down  the  morals  of  the  rising  generation  ?  and  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  are  they  fountains  of  corruption  ?  Or  if,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  a  provident  liberality,  in  regard  to  its  own  property  as 
a  great  landed  proprietor,  and  to  high  purposes  of  utility  towards 
others,  the  government  gives  portions  of  these  lands  to  the  mak- 
ing of  a  canal,  or  the  opening  of  a  road,  in  the  country  where 
the  lands  themselves  are  situated,  what  alarming  and  over- 
whelming corruption  follows  from  all  this  ?  Can  there  be  noth- 
ing pure  in  government  except  the  exercise  of  mere  control? 
Can  nothing  be  done  without  corruption,  but  the  impositions 
of  penalty  and  restraint?  Whatever  is  positively  beneficent, 
whatever  is  actively  good,  whatever  spreads  abroad  benefits  and 
blessings  which  all  can  see  and  all  can  feel,  whatever  opens  chan- 
nels of  intercourse,  augments  population,  enhances  the  value  of 
property,  and  diffuses  knowledge,  —  must  all  this  be  rejected  and 
reprobated  as  a  dangerous  and  obnoxious  policy,  hurrying  us  to 
the  double  ruin  of  a  government,  turned  into  despotism  by  the 
mere  exercise  of  acts  of  beneficence,  and  of  a  people,  corrupted, 
beyond  hope  of  rescue,  by  the  improvement  of  their  condition  ? 

The  gentleman  proceeded,  Sir,  to  draw  a  frightful  picture  of 
the  future.  He  spoke  of  the  centuries  that  must  elapse  before 
all  the  lands  could  be  sold,  and  the  great  hardships  that  the 
States  must  suffer  while  the  United  States  reserve  to  themselves, 
within  their  limits,  such  large  portions  of  soil,  not  liable  to  taxa- 
tion. Sir,  this  is  all,  or  mostly,  imagination.  If  these  lands  were 
leasehold  property,  if  they  were  held  by  the  United  States  on 
tent,  there  would  be  much  in  the  idea.  But  they  are  wild  lands, 
held  only  till  they  can  be  sold ;  reserved  no  longer  than  till  some- 
body will  take  them  up,  at  low  prices.  As  to  their  not  being 
taxed,  I  would  ask  whether  the  States  themselves,  if  they  owned 


FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  261 

them,  would  tax  them  before  sale  ?  Sir,  if  in  any  case  any  Siate 
can  show  that  the  policy  of  the  United  States  retards  her  settle- 
ment,  or  prevents  her  from  cultivating  the  lands  within  her  lim- 
its, she  shall  have  my  vote  to  alter  that  policy.  But  I  look  upon 
the  public  lands  as  a  public  fund,  and  that  we  are  no  more  au- 
thorized to  give  them  away  gratuitously  than  to  give  away  gra- 
tuitously the  money  in  the  treasuryy  I  am  quite  aware,  that 
the  sums  drawn  annually  from  the  Western  States  make  a 
heavy  drain  upon  them ;  but  that  is  unavoidable.  For  that  very 
reason,  among  others,  I  have  always  been  inclined  to  pursue 
towards  them  a  kind  and  most  liberal  policy ;  but  I  am  not  at 
liberty  to  forget,  at  the  same  time,  what  is  due  to  other  States, 
and  to  the  solemn  engagements  under  which  the  government 
rests. 

1  come  now,  Mr.  President,  to  that  part  of  the  gentleman's 
speech  which  has  been  the  main  occasion  of  my  addressing  the 
Se*nate.  The  East !  the  obnoxious,  the  rebuked,  the  always  re- 
proached East !  —  we  have  come  in,  Sir,  on  this  debate,  for  even 
more  than  a  common  share  of  accusation  and  attack.  If  the 
honorable  member  from  South  Carolina  was  not  our  original 
accuser,  he  has  yet  recited  the  indictment  against  us  with  the 
air  and  tone  of  a  public  prosecutor.  He  has  summoned  us  to 
plead  on  our  arraignment ;  and  he  tells  us  we  are  charged  with 
the  crime  of  a  narrow  and  selfish  policy ;  of  endeavoring  to  re- 
strain emigration  to  the  West,  and,  having  that  object  in  view, 
of  maintaining  a  steady  opposition  to  Western  measures  and 
Western  interests.  And  the  cause  of  all  this  narrow  and  selfish 
policy,  the  gentleman  finds  in  the  tariff;  I  think  he  called  it  the 
accursed  policy  of  the  tariff.  This  policy,  the  gentleman  ,tells  us, 
requires  multitudes  of  dependent  laborers,  a  population  of  pau- 
pers, and  that  it  is  to  secure  these  at  home  that  the  East  op- 
poses whatever  may  induce  to  Western  emigration.  Sir,  I  rise 
to  defend  the  East.  I  rise  to  repel,  both  the  charge  itself,  and 
the  cause  assigned  for  it.  I  deny  that  the  East  has,  at  any  time, 
shown  an  illiberal  policy  towards  the  West.  I  pronounce  the 
whole  accusation  to  be  without  the  least  foundation  in  any 
facts,  existing  either  now  or  at  any  previous  time.  I  deny  it  in 
the  general,  and  I  deny  each  and  all  its  particulars.  I  deny  the 
sum  total,  and  I  deny  the  detail.  I  deny  that  the  East  has  ever 
manifested  hostility  to  the  West,  and  I  deny  that  she  has  adopt- 


262  FIRST  SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

ed  any  policy  that  would  naturally  have  led  her  in  such  a 
course 

But  the  tariff!  the  tariff!!  Sir,  I  beg  to  say  in  regard  to  the 
East,  that  the  original  policy  of  the  tariff  is  not  hers,  whether  it 
be  wise  or  unwise.  New  England  is  not  its  author.  If  gentle- 
men  will  refer  to  the  tariff  of  1816,  they  will  find  that  this  was 
not  carried  by  New  England  votes.  It  was  truly  more  a  South- 
ern than  an  Eastern  measure.  And  what  votes  carried  the  tar- 
iff of  1824  ?  Certainly  not  those  of  New  England.  It  is  known 
to  have  been  made  matter  of  reproach,  especially  against  Mas- 
sachusetts, that  she  would  not  aid  the  tariff  of  1824 ;  and  a  self- 
ish motive  was  imputed  to  her  for  that,  also.  In  point  of  fact, 
it  is  true  that  she  did,  indeed,  oppose  the  tariff  of  1824.  There 
were  more  votes  in  favor  of  that  law  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, not  only  in  each  of  a  majority  of  the  Western  States, 
but  even  in  Virginia  herself,  than  in  Massachusetts.  It  was 
literally  forced  upon  New  England ;  and  this  shows  how  ground- 
less, how  void  of  all  probability,  must  be  any  charge  of  hos- 
tility to  the  growth  of  the  Western  States,  as  naturally  flow- 
ing from  a  cherished  policy  of  her  own. 

But  leaving  all  conjectures  about  causes  and  motives,  I  go  at 
once  to  the  fact,  and  I  meet  it  with  one  broad,  comprehensive, 
and  emphatic  negative.  I  deny  that,  in  any  part  of  her  history, 
at  any  period  of  the  government,  or  in  relation  to  any  leading 
subject,  New  England  has  manifested  such  hostility  as  is  charged 
upon  her.  On  the  contrary,  I  maintain  that,  from  the  day  of  the 
cession  of  the  territories  by  the  States  to  Congress,  no  portion 
of  the  country  has  acted  either  with  more  liberality  or  more  in- 
telligence, on  the  subject  of  the  public  lands  in  the  new  States, 
than  New  England. 

This  statement,  though  strong,  is  no  stronger  than  the  strict- 
est truths  will  warrant.  Let  us  look  at  the  historical  facts.  So 
soon  as  the  cessions  were  obtained,  it  became  necessary  to  make 
provision  for  the  government  and  disposition  of  the  territory. 
The  country  was  to  be  governed.  This,  for  the  present,  it  was 
obvious,  must  be  by  some  territorial  system  of  administration. 
But  the  soil,  also,  was  to  be  granted  and  settled.  Those  im- 
mense regions,  large  enough  almost  for  an  empire,  were  to  be 
appropriated  to  private  ownership.  How  was  this  best  to  be 
done  ?  What  system  for  sale  and  disposition  should  be  adopt- 


FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  263 

ed?  Two  modes  for  conducting  the  sales  presented  themselves; 
the  one  a  Southern,  and  the  other  a  Northern  mode.  It  would 
be  tedious,  Sir,  here,  to  run  out  these  different  systems  into  all 
their  distinctions,  and  to  contrast  the  opposite  results.  That 
which  was  adopted  was  the  Northern  system,  and  is  that  which 
we  now  see  in  successful  operation  in  ah1  the  new  States.  That 
which  was  rejected  was  the  system  of  warrants,  surveys,  entry, 
and  location ;  such  as  prevails  south  of  the  Ohio.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  extend  these  remarks  into  invidious  compari- 
sons. This  last  system  is  that  which,  as  has  been  expressively 
said,  has  shingled  over  the  country  to  which  it  was  applied 
with  so  many  conflicting  titles  and  claims.  Every  body  ac- 
quainted with  the  subject  knows  how  easily  it  leads  to  spec- 
ulation and  litigation,  —  two  great  calamities  in  a  new  country. 
From  the  system  actually  established,  these  evils  are  banished. 
Now,  Sir,  in  effecting  this  great  measure,  the  first  important 
measure  on  the  whole  subject,  New  England  acted  with  vigor 
and  effect,  and  the  latest  posterity  of  those  who  settled  the  region 
northwest  of  the  Ohio  will  have  reason  to  remember,  with  grat- 
itude, her  patriotism  and  her  wisdom.  The  system  adopted  was 
her  own  system.  She  knew,  for  she  had  tried  and  proved  its 
value.  It  was  the  old-fashioned  way  of  surveying  lands  before 
the  issuing  of  any  title  papers,  and  then  of  inserting  accurate 
and  precise  descriptions  in  the  patents  or  graihts,  and  proceeding 
with  regular  reference  to  rnetes  and  bounds.  This  gives  to  origi- 
nal titles,  derived  from  government,  a  certain  and  fixed  char- 
acter ;  it  cuts  up  litigation  by  the  roots,  and  the  settler  com- 
mences his  labor  with  the  assurance  that  he  has  a  clear  title.  It 
is  easy  to  perceive,  but  not  easy  to  measure,  the  importance  of 
this  in  a  new  country.  New  England  gave  this  system  to  the 
West;  and  while  it  remains,  there  will  be  spread  over  all  the 
West  one  monument  of  her  intelligence  in  matters  of  govern- 
ment, and  her  practical  good  sense. 

At  the  foundation  of  the  constitution  of  these  new  North- 
western States  lies  the  celebrated  Ordinance  of  1787.  We  are 
accustomed,  Sir,  to  praise  the  lawgivers  of  antiquity ;  we  help  to 
perpetuate  the  fame  of  Solon  and  Lycurgus ;  but  I  doubt  wheth- 
er one  single  law  of  any  lawgiver,  ancient  or  modern,  has  pro- 
duced effects  of  more  distinct,  marked,  and  lasting  character  than 
the  Ordinance  of  1787.  That  instrument  was  drawn  by  Nathan 


264  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

Dane,  then  and  now  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts.  It  \v  as  adopt- 
ed, as  I  think  I  have  understood,  without  the  slightest  altera- 
tion ;  and  certainly  it  has  happened  to  few  men  to  be  the 
authors  of  a  political  measure  of  more  large  and  enduring  con- 
sequence. It  fixed  for  ever  the  character  of  the  population  in 
the  vast  regions  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  by  excluding  from  them 
involuntary  servitude.  It  impressed  on  the  soil  itself,  while  it 
was  yet  a  wilderness,  an  incapacity  to  sustain  any  other  than 
freemen.  It  laid  the  interdict  against  personal  servitude,  in 
original  compact,  not  only  deeper  than  all  local  law,  but  deeper, 
also,  than  all  local  constitutions.  Under  the  circumstances  then 
existing,  I  look  upon  this  original  and  seasonable  provision  as  a 
real  gQod  attained.  We  see  its  consequences  at  this  moment, 
and  we  shall  never  cease  to  see  them,  perhaps,  while  the  Ohio 
shall  flow.  It  was  a  great  and  salutary  measure  of  prevention. 
Sir,  I  should  fear  the  rebuke  of  no  intelligent  gentleman  of 
Kentucky,  were  I  to  ask  whether,  if  such  an  ordinance  could 
have  been  applied  to  his  own  State,  while  it  yet  was  a  wilder- 
ness, and  before  Boone  had  passed  the  gap  of  the  Alleghanies, 
he  does  not  suppose  it  would  have  contributed  to  the  ultimate 
greatness  of  that  commonwealth  ?  It  is,  at  any  rate,  not  to  be 
doubted,  that,  where  it  did  apply,  it  has  produced  an  effect  not 
easily  to  be  described  or  measured,  in  the  growth  of  the  States> 
and  the  extent  and  increase  of  their  population.  Now,  Sir,  as  I 
have  stated,  this  great  measure  was  brought  forward  in  1787,  by 
the  North.  It  was  sustained,  indeed,  by  the  votes  of  the  South, 
but  it  must  have  failed  without  the  cordial  support  of  the 
New  England  States.  If  New  England  had  been  governed  by 
the  narrow  and  selfish  views  now  ascribed  to  her,  this  very 
measure  was,  of  all  others,  the  best  calculated  to  thwart  her 
purposes.  It  was,  of  all  things,  the  very  means  of  rendering 
certain  a  vast  emigration  from  her  own  population  to  tlfe  West. 
She  looked  to  that  consequence  only  to  disregard  it.  She 
deemed  the  regulation  a  most  useful  one  to  the  States  that 
would  spring  up  on  the  territory,  and  advantageous  to  the  coun- 
try at  large.  She  adhered  to  the  principle  of  it  perseveringly, 
year  after  year,  until  it  was  finally  accomplished. 

Leaving,  then,  Mr.  President,  these  two  great  and  leading 
measures,  and  coming  down  to  our  own  times,  what  is  there  in 
the  history  of  recent  measures  of  government  that  exposes  New 


FIRST    SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  265 

England  to  this  accusation  of  hostility  to  Western  interests  ?  I 
assert,  boldly,  that,  in  all  measures  conducive  to  the  welfare  of 
the  West,  since  my  acquaintance  here,  no  part  of  the  country 
has  manifested  a  more  liberal  policy.  I  beg  to  say,  Sir,  that  I  do 
not  state  this  with  a  view  of  claiming  for  her  any  special  regard 
on  that  account.  Not  at  all.  She  does  not  place  her  support 
of  measures  on  the  ground  of  favor  conferred.  Far  otherwise. 
What  she  has  done  has  been  consonant  to  her  view  of  the  gen- 
eral good,  and  therefore  she  has  done  it.  She  has  sought  to 
make  no  gain  of  it ;  on  the  contrary,  individuals  may  have  felt, 
undoubtedly,  some  natural  regret  at  finding  the  relative  impor- 
tance of  their  own  States  diminished  by  the  growth  of  the 
West.  But  New  England  has  regarded  that  as  the  natural 
course  of  things,  and  has  never  complained  of  it.  Let  me  see, 
Sir,  any  one  measure  favorable  to  the  West,  which  has  been 
opposed  by  New  England,  since  the  government  bestowed  its  at- 
tention on  these  Western  improvements.  Select  what  you  will, 
if  it  be  a  measure  of  acknowledged  utility,  I  answer  for  it,  it 
will  be  found  that  not  only  were  New  England  votes  for  it,  but 
that  New  England  votes  carried  it.  Will  you  take  the  Cumber- 
land Road  ?  who  has  made  that  ?  Will  you  take  the  Portland 
Canal?  whose  support  carried  that  bill?  Sir,  at  what  period 
beyond  the  Greek  kalends  could  these  measures,  or  measures 
like  these,  have  been  accomplished,  had  they  depended  on  the 
votes  of  Southern  gentlemen?  Why,  Sir,  we  know  that  we 
must  have  waited  till  the  constitutional  notions  of  those  gentle- 
men had  undergone  an  entire  change.  Generally  speaking,  they 
have  done  nothing,  and  can  do  nothing.  All  that  has  been 
effected  has  been  done  by  the  votes  of  reproached  New  Eng- 
land. I  undertake  to  say,  Sir,  that  if  you  look  to  the  votes  on 
any  one  of  these  measures,  and  strike  out  from  the  list  of  ayea 
the  names  of  New  England  members,  it  will  be  found  that,  in 
every  case,  the  South  would  then  have  voted  down  the  West, 
and  the  measure  would  have  failed.  I  do  not  believe  any  one 
instance  can  be  found  where  this  is  not  strictly  true.  I  do  not 
believe  that  one  dollar  has  been  expended  for  these  purposes  be- 
yond the  mountains,  which  could  have  been  obtained  without 
cordial  cooperation  and  support  from  New  England. 

Sir,  1  put  the  question  to  the  West  itself.  Let  gentlemen 
who  have  sat  here  ten  years  come  forth  and  declare,  by  what 

VOL.  in.  23 


266  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

aids,  and  by  whose  votes,  they  have  succeeded,  in  measures 
deemed  of  essential  importance  to  their  part  of  the  country. 
To  all  men  of  sense  and  candor,  in  or  out  of  Congress,  who 
have  any  knowledge  upon  the  subject,  New  England  may  ap- 
peal for  refutation  of  the  reproach  it  is  now  attempted  to  cast 
upon  her  in  this  respect. 

I  take  the  liberty  to  repeat,  that  I  make  no  claim  on  behalf  of 
New  England,  or  on  account  of  that  which  I  have  now  stated. 
She  does  not  profess  to  have  acted  out  of  favor ;  for  it  would 
not  become  her  so  to  have  acted.  She  asks  for  no  especial 
thanks ;  but,  in  the  consciousness  of  having  done  her  duty  in 
these  things  uprightly  and  honestly,  and  with  a  fair  and  liberal 
spirit,  be  assured  she  will  repel,  whenever  she  thinks  the  occa- 
sion calls  for  it,  an  unjust  and  groundless  imputation  of  partial- 
ity and  selfishness. 

The  gentleman  alluded  to  a  report  of  the  late  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  which,  according  to  his  reading  or  construction  of  it, 
recommended  what  he  calls  the  tariff  policy,  or  a  branch  of  that 
policy;  that  is,  the  restraining  of  emigration  to  the  West,  for 
the  purpose  of  keeping  hands  at  home  to  carry  on  manufactures. 
I  think,  Sir,  that  the  gentleman  misapprehended  the  meaning 
of  the  Secretary,  in  the  interpretation  given  to  his  remarks.  I 
understand  him  only  as  saying,  that,  since  the  low  price  of  lands 
at  the  West  acts  as  a  constant  and  standing  bounty  to  agricul- 
ture, it  is,  on  that  account,  the  more  reasonable  to  provide  en- 
couragement for  manufactures.  But,  Sir,  even  if  the  Secretary's 
observation  were  to  be  understood  as  the  gentleman  understands 
it,  it  would  not  be  a  sentiment  borrowed  from  any  New  Eng- 
land source.  Whether  it  be  right  or  wrong,  it  does  not  origi- 
nate in  that  quarter. 

In  the  course  of  these  remarks,  Mr.  President,  I  have  spoken 
of  the  supposed  desire,  on  the  part  of  the  Atlantic  States,  to 
check,  or  at  least  not  to  hasten,  Western  emigration,  as  a  nar- 
row policy.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  have  qualified  the  expression ; 
because,  Sir,  I  am  now  about  to  quote  the  opinion  of  one 
to  whom  I  would  impute  nothing  narrow.  I  am  about  to 
refer  you  to  the  language  of  a  gentleman  of  much  and  de- 
served distinction,  a  member  of  the  other  House,  and  occu- 
pying a  prominent  situation  there.  The  gentleman,  Sir,  is  from 
South  Carolina.  In  1825,  a  debate  arose  in  the  House  of  Rep- 


FIRST   SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  267 

resentatives  on  the  subject  of  the  Western  Road.  It  happened 
to  me  to  take  some  part  in  the  debate ;  I  was  answered  by  the 
honorable  gentleman  to  whom  I  allude,  and  I  replied.  May  I 
be  pardoned,  Sir,  if  I  read  a  part  of  this  debate. 

"  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has  urged,"  said  Mr.  McDuffie, 
"  as  one  leading  reason  why  the  government  should  make  roads  to  the 
West,  that  these  roads  have  a  tendency  to  settle  the  public  lands ;  that 
they  increase  the  inducements  to  settlement,  and  that  this  is  a  national 
object.  Sir,  I  differ  entirely  from  his  views  on  the  subject.  I  think 
that  the  public  lands  are  settling  quite  fast  enough ;  that  our  people 
need  no  stimulus  to  urge  them  thither,  but  want  rather  a  check,  at 
least  on  that  artificial  tendency  to  Western  settlement  which  we  have 
created  by  our  own  laws. 

"  The  gentleman  says,  that  the  great  object  of  government  with  re- 
spect to  those  lands  is,  not  to  make  them  a  source  of  revenue,  but  to  get 
them  settled.  What  would  have  been  thought  of  this  argument  in  the 
old  thirteen  States  ?  It  amounts  to  this,  that  those  States  are  to  offer  a 
bonus  of  their  own  impoverishment,  to  create  a  vortex  to  swallow  up  our 
floating  population.  Look,  Sir,  at  the  present  aspect  of  the  Southern 
States.  In  no  part  of  Europe  will  you  see  the  same  indications  of  de- 
cay. Deserted  villages,  houses  falling  to  ruin,  impoverished  lands 
thrown  out  of  cultivation.  Sir,  I  believe  that,  if  the  public  lands  had 
never  been  sold,  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  national  wealth  would 
have  been  greater  at  this  moment.  Our  population,  if  concentrated  in 
the  old  States,  and  not  ground  down  by  tariffs,  would  have  been  more 
prosperous  and  wealthy.  But  every  inducement  has  been  held  out  to 
them  to  settle  in  the  West,  until  our  population  has  become  sparse,  and 
then  the  effects  of  this  sparseness  are  now  to  be  counteracted  by  another 
artificial  system.  Sir,  1  say  if  there  is  any  object  worthy  the  attention 
of  this  government,  it  is  a  plan  which  shall  limit  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands.  If  those  lands  were  sold  according  to  their  real  value,  be  it  so. 
But  while  the  government  continues  as  it  does  to  give  them  away,  they 
will  draw  the  population  of  the  older  States,  and  still  further  increase 
the  effect  which  is  already  distressingly  felt,  and  which  must  go  to  di- 
minish the  value  of  all  those  States  possess.  And  this,  Sir,  is  held  out 
to  us  as  a  motive  for  granting  the  present  appropriation.  I  would  not, 
indeed,  prevent  the  formation  of  roads  on  these  considerations,  but  I 
certainly  would  not  encourage  it.  Sir,  there  is  an  additional  item  in  the 
account  of  the  benefits  which  this  government  has  conferred  on  the 
Western  States.  It  is  the  sale  of  the  public  lands  at  the  minimum  price. 
At  this  moment  we  are  selling  to  the  people  of  the  West,  lands,  at  one 
dollar  and  twenty-five  cents,  which  are  worth  fifteen  dollars,  and  which 
would  sell  at  that  price  if  the  markets  were  not  glutted.' 


208  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

Mr.  Webster  observed,  in  reply,  that 

"  The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  had  mistaken  him,  if  he  sup- 
posed that  it  was  his  wish  so  to  hasten  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  as 
to  throw  them  into  the  hands  of  purchasers  who  would  sell  again.  His 
idea  only  went  as  far  as  this :  that  the  price  should  be  fixed  so  low  as 
not  to  prevent  the  settlement  of  the  lands,  yet  not  so  low  as  to  allow 
speculators  to  purchase.  Mr.  Webster  observed,  that  he  could  not  at  alt 
concur  with  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  in  wishing  to  restrain 
the  laboring  classes  of  population  in  the  Eastern  States  from  going  to 
any  part  of  our  territory  where  they  could  better  their  condition  ;  nor 
did  he  suppose  that  such  an  idea  was  anywhere  entertained.  The  ob- 
servations of  the  gentleman  had  opened  to  him  new  views  of  policy  on 
this  subject,  and  he  thought  he  now  could  perceive  why  some  of  our 
States  continued  to  have  such  bad  roads ;  it  must  be  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  people  from  going  out  of  them.  The  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  supposes,  that,  if  our  population  had  been  confined  to  the  old 
thirteen  States,  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  country  would  have  been 
greater  than  it  now  is.  But,  Sir,  it  is  an  error,  that  the  increase  of  the 
aggregate  of  the  national  wealth  is  the  object  chiefly  to  be  pursued  by 
government.  The  distribution  of  the  national  wealth  is  an  object  quite 
as  important  as  its  increase.  He  was  not  surprised  that  the  old  States 
not  increasing  in  population  so  fast  as  was  expected,  (for  he  believed 
nothing  like  a  decrease  was  pretended,)  should  be  an  idea  by  no  means 
agreeable  to  gentlemen  from  those  States.  We  are  all  reluctant  to 
submit  to  the  loss  of  relative  importance ;  but  this  was  nothing  mure 
than  the  natural  condition  of  a  country  densely  peopled  in  one  part, 
and  possessing  in  another  a  vast  tract  of  unsettled  lands.  The  plan  of 
the  gentleman  went  to  reverse  the  order  of  nature,  vainly  expecting  to 
retain  men  within  a  small  and  comparatively  unproductive  territory, '  who 
have  all  the  world  before  them  where  to  choose.'  For  his  own  part,  he 
was  in  favor  of  letting  population  take  its  own  course  ;  he  should  expe- 
rience no  feeling  of  mortification  if  any  of  his  constituents  liked  better 
to  settle  on  the  Kansas  or  Arkansas,  or  elsewhere  within  our  territory ; 
let  them  go,  and  be  happier  if  they  could.  The  gentleman  says,  our 
aggregate  of  wealth  would  have  been  greater  if  our  population  had  been 
restrained  within  the  limits  of  the  old  States ;  but  does  he  not  consider 
population  to  be  wealth  ?  And  has  not  this  been  increased  by  the  set- 
tlement of  a  new  and  fertile  country  ?  Such  a  country  presents  the  most 
alluring  of  all  prospects  to  a  young  and  laboring  man ;  it  gives  him  a 
freehold,  it  offers  to  him  weight  and  resp'ectability  in  society  ;  arid  above 
all,  it  presents  to  him  a  prospect  of  a  permanent  provision  for  his  chil- 
dren. Sir,  these  are  inducements  which  never  were  resisted,  and  never 


FIRST  SPEECH   ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  269 

will  be  ;  and,  were  the  whole  extent  of  country  filled  with  population 
up  to  the  Kocky  Mountains,  these  inducements  would  carry  that  popula- 
tion forward  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  Sir,  it  is  in  vain  to 
talk  ;  individuals  will  seek  their  own  good,  and  not  any  artificial  aggre- 
gate of  the  national  wealth.  A  young  enterprising  and  hardy  agricul- 
turist can  conceive  of  nothing  better  to  him  than  plenty  of  good,  cheap 
land." 

Sir,  with  the  reading  of  these  extracts  I  leave  the  subject. 
The  Senate  will  bear  me  witness  that  I  am  not  accustomed  to 
allude  to  local  opinions,  nor  to  compare  or  contrast  different 
portions  of  the  country.  I  have  often  suffered  things  to  pass 
without  any  observation,  which  I  might  properly  enough  have 
considered  as  deserving  remark.  But  I  have  felt  it  my  duty, 
on  this  occasion,  to  vindicate  the  State  I  represent  from  charges 
and  imputations  on  her  public  character  and  conduct,  which  I 
know  to  be  undeserved  and  unfounded.  If  advanced  elsewhere, 
they  might  be  passed,  perhaps,  without  notice.  But  whatever 
is  said  here  is  supposed  to  be  entitled  to  public  regard,  and  to 
deserve  public  attention ;  it,  derives  importance  and  dignity 
from  the  place  where  it  is  uttered.  As  a  true  representative  of 
the  State  which  has  sent  me  here,  it  is  my  duty,  and  a  duty 
which  I  shall  fulfil,  to  place  her  history  and  her  conduct,  her 
honor  and  her  character,  in  their  just  and  proper  light,  so  often 
as  I  think  an  attack  is  made  upon  her,  so  respectable  as  to  de- 
serve to  be  repelled. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION/ 


MR.  WEBSTER  having  concluded  the  preceding  speech,  Mr.  Benton 
spoke  in  reply,  on  the  20th  and  21st  of  January,  1830.  Mr.  Hayne  of 
South  Carolina  followed  on  the  same  side,  but,  after  some  time,  gave 
way  for  a  motion  for  adjournment.  On  Monday,  the  25th,  Mr.  Hayne 
resumed,  and  concluded  his  argument.  Mr.  Webster  immediately  rose 
in  reply,  but  yielded  the  floor  for  a  motion  for  adjournment. 

The  next  day  (26th  January,  1830)  Mr.  Webster  took  the  floor  and 
delivered  the  following  speech,  which  has  given  such  great  celebrity  to 
the  debate.  The  circumstances  connected  with  this  remarkable  effort 
of  parliamentary  eloquence  are  stated  in  the  biographical  memoir  in 
the  first  volume  of  this  collection. 


,B 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed  for 
many  days  in  thick  weather,  and  on  an  unknown  sea,  he  natu- 
rally avails  himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest 
glance  of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude,  and  ascertain  how  far  the 
elements  have  driven  him  from  his  true  course.  Let  us  imi- 
tate this  prudence,  and,  before  we  float  farther  on  the  waves  of 
this  debate,  refer  to  the  point  from  which  we  departed^,  that  we 
may  at  least  be  able  to  conjecture  where  we  now  are.,  I  ask  for 
the  reading  of  the  resolution  before  the  Senate. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as  follows :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be  instructed  to  in- 
quire and  report  the  quantity  of  public  lands  remaining  unsold  within 
each  State  and  Territory,  and  whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit  for  a  cer- 
tain period  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  only  as  have  hereto- 
fore been  offered  for  sale,  and  are  now  subject  to  entry  at  the  minimum 

•  Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  26th  of  January,  1830. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     271 

price.  And,  also,  whether  the  office  of  Surveyor-General,  and  some 
of  the  land  offices,  may  not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to  the  public 
interest ;  o:  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt  measures  to  hasten  the  sales 
and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  the  public  lands." 

We  have  thus  heard,  Sir,  what  the  resolution  is  which  is  ac- 
tually before  us  for  consideration ;  and  it  will  readily  occur  to 
every  one,  that  it  is  almost  the  only  subject  about  which  some- 
thing has  not  been  said  in  the  speech,  running  through  two 
days,  by  which  the  Senate  has  been  entertained  by  the  gentle- 
man from  South  Carolina.  Every  topic  in  the  wide  range  of 
our  public  affairs,  whether  past  or  present,  —  every  thing,  general 
or  local,  whether  belonging  to  national  politics  or  party  politics, 
—  seems  to  have  attracted  more  or  less  of  the  honorable  mem- 
ber's attention,  save  only  the  resolution  before  the  Senate.  He 
has  spoken  of  every  thing  but  the  public  lands;  they  have 
escaped  his  notice.  To  that  subject,  in  all  his  excursions,  he 
has  not  paid  even  the  cold  respect  of  a  passing  glance. 

When  this  debate,  Sir,  was  to  be  resumed,  on  Thursday 
morning,  it  so  happened  that  it  would  have  been  convenient  for 
me  to  be  elsewhere.  The  honorable  member,  however,  did  not 
incline  to  put  off  the  discussion  to  another  day.  He  had  a 
shot,  he  said,  to  return,  and  he  wished  to  discharge  it.  That 
shot,  Sir,  which  he  thus  kindly  informed  us  was  coming,  that 
we  might  stand  out  of  the  way,  or  prepare  ourselves  to  fall  by  it 
and  die  with  decency,  has  now  been  received.  Under  all  advan- 
tages, and  with  expectation  awakened  by  the  tone  which  pre- 
ceded it,  it  has  been  discharged,  and  has  spent  its  force.  It  may 
become  me  to  say  no  more  of  its  effect,  than  that,  if  nobody 
is  found,  after  all,  either  killed  or  wounded,  it  is  not  the  first 
time,  in  the  history  of  human  affairs,  that  the  vigor  and  success 
of  the  war  have  not  quite  come  up  to  the  lofty  and  sounding 
phrase  of  the  manifesto. 

The  gentleman,  Sir,  in  declining  to  postpone  the  debate,  told 
the  Senate,  with  the  emphasis  of  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  that 
there  was  something  rankling  here,  which  he  wished  to  relieve. 
[Mr  Hayne  rose,  and  disclaimed  having  used  the  word  rank- 
ling It  would  not,  Mr.  President,  be  safe  for  the  honorable 
member  to  appeal  to  those  around  him,  upon  the  question 
whether  he  did  in  fact  make  use  of  that  word.  But  he .  may 
have  been  unconscious  of  it.  At  any  rate,  it  is  enough  that  he 


272  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

disclaims  it.  But  still,  with  or  without  the  use  of  that  particu- 
lar word,  he  had  yet  something  here,  he  said,  of  which  ne  wished 
to  rid  himself  by  an  immediate  reply.  In  this  respect,  Sir,  I 
have  a  great  advantage  over  the  honorable  gentleman.  There 
is  nothing  here,  Sir,  which  gives  me  the  slightest  uneasiness; 
neither  fear,  nor  anger,  nor  that  which  is  sometimes  more  trou- 
blesome than  either,  the  consciousness  of  having  been  in  the 
wrong.  There  is  nothing,  either  originating  here,  or  now  received 
here  by  the  gentleman's  shot.  Nothing  originating  here,  for  I 
had  not  the  slightest  feeling  of  unkindness  towards  the  hon- 
orable member.  Some  passages,  it  is  true,  had  occurred  since 
our  acquaintance  in  this  body,  which  I  could  have  wished  might 
have  been  otherwise ;  but  I  had  used  philosophy  and  forgotten 
them.  I  paid  the  honorable  member  the  attention  of  listen- 
ing with  respect  to  his  first  speech ;  and  when  he  sat  down, 
though  surprised,  and  I  must  even  say  astonished,  at  some  of 
his  opinions,  nothing  was  farther  from  my  intention  than  to 
commence  any  personal  warfare.  Through  the  whole  of  the 
few  remarks  I  made  in  answer,  I  avoided,  studiously  and  care- 
fully, every  thing  which  I  thought  possible  to  be  construed  into 
disrespect.  And,  Sir,  while  there  is  thus  nothing  originating 
here  which  I  have  wished  at  any  time,  or  now  wish,  to  discharge, 
I  must  repeat,  also,  that  nothing  has  been  received  here  which 
rankles,  or  in  any  way  gives  me  annoyance.  I  will  not  accuse 
the  honorable  member  of  violating  the  rules  of  civilized  war; 
I  will  not  say,  that  he  poisoned  his  arrows.  But  whether  his 
shafts  were,  or  were  not,  dipped  in  that  which  would  have 
caused  rankling  if  they  had  reached  their  destination,  there  was 
not,  as  it  happened,  quite  strength  enough  in  the  bow  to  bring 
them  to  their  mark.  If  he  wishes  now  to  gather  up  those  shafts, 
he  must  look  for  them  elsewhere ;  they  will  not  be  found  fixed 
and  quivering  in  the  object  at  which  they  were  aimed. 

The  honorable  member  complained  that  I  had  slept  on  his 
speech.  I  must  have  slept  on  it,  or  not  slept  at  all.  The  mo- 
ment the  honorable  member  sat  down,  his  friend  from  Missouri 
rose,  and,  with  much  honeyed  commendation  of  the  speech,  sug- 
gested that  the  impressions  which  it  had  produced  were  too 
charming  and  delightful  to  be  disturbed  by  other  sentiments  or 
other  sounds,  and  proposed  that  the  Senate  should  adjourn. 
Would  it  have  been  quite  amiable  in  me,  Sir,  to  interrupt  this 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOTS  RESOLUTION.  273 

excellent  good  feeling?  Must  I  not  have  been  absolutely  mali- 
cious, if  I  could  have  thrust  myself  forward,  to  destroy  sensa- 
tions thus  pleasing?  Was  it  not  much  better  and  kinder, 
both  to  sleep  upon  them  myself,  and  to  allow  others  also  the 
pleasure  of  sleeping  upon  them  ?  But  if  it  be  meant,  by 
sleeping  upon  his  speech,  that  I  took  time  to  prepare  a  reply 
to  it,  it  is  quite  a  mistake.  Owing  to  other  engagements,  I 
could  not  employ  even  the  interval  between  the  adjournment 
of  the  Senate  and  its  meeting  the  next  morning,  in  atten- 
tion to  the  subject  of  this  debate.  Nevertheless,  Sir,  the  mere 
matter  of  fact  is  undoubtedly  true.  I  did  sleep  on  the  gentle- 
man's speech,  and  slept  soundly.  And  I  slept  equally  well  on 
his  speech  of  yesterday,  to  which  I  am  now  replying.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  in  this  respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advantage  over 
the  honorable  member,  attributable,  doubtless,  to  a  cooler  tem- 
perament on  my  part ;  for,  in  truth,  I  slept  upon  his  speeches 
remarkably  well.  • 

But  the  gentleman  inquires  why  he  was  made  the  object  of 
such  a  reply.  Why  was  he  singled  out  ?  If  an  attack  has  been 
made  on  the  East,  he,  he  assures  us,  did  not  begin  it ;  it  was 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Missouri.  Sir,  I  answered  the 
gentleman's  speech  because  I  happened  to  hear  it ;  and  because, 
also,  I  chose  t(5  give  an  answer  to  that  speech,  which,  if  unan- 
swered, I  thought  most  likely  to  produce  injurious  impressions. 
I  did  not  stop  to  inquire  who  was  the  original  drawer  of  the  bill. 
I  found  a  responsible  indorser  before  me,  and  it  was  my  pur- 
pose to,  hold  him  liable,  and  to  bring  him  to  his  just  responsibil- 
ity, without  delay.  But,  Sir,  this  interrogatory  of  the  honorable 
member  was  only  introductory  to  another.  He  proceeded  to 
ask  me  whether  I  had  turned  upon  him,  in  this  debate,  from 
the  consciousness  that  I  should  find  an  overmatch,  if  I  ventured 
on  a  contest  with  his  friend  from  Missouri.  If,  Sir,  the  hon- 
orable member,  modesties  gratia,  had  chosen  thus  to  defer  to 
his  friend,  and  to  pay  him  a  compliment,  without  intentional 
disparagement  to  others,  it  would  have  been  quite  according  to 
the  friendly  courtesies  of  debate,  and  not  at  all  ungrateful  to  my 
own  feelings.  I  am  not  one  of  those,  Sir,  who  esteem  any  trib- 
ute of  regard,  whether  light  and  occasional,  or  more  serious 
and  deliberate,  which  may  be  bestowed  on  others,  as  so  much 
un  ustly  withholden  from  themselves.  But  the  tone  and  man 


274  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

ner  of  the  gentleman's  question  forbid  me  thus  to  interpret 
it.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  consider  it  as  nothing  more  than  a 
civility  to  his  friend.  It  had  an  air  of  taunt  and  disparagement, 
something  of  the  loftiness  of  asserted  superiority,  which  does  not 
allow  me  to  pass  it  over  without  notice.  It  was  put  as  a  ques- 
tion for  me  to  answsr,  and  so  put  as  if  it  were  difficult  for  me 
to  answer,  whethei  I  deemed  the  member  from  Missouri  an 
overmatch  for  myself,  in  debate  here.  It  seems  to  me,  Sir,  that 
this  is  extraordinary  language,  and  an  extraordinary  tone,  for 
the  discussions  of  this  body. 

l  Matches  and  overmatches !  Those  terms  are  more  applicable 
elsewhere  than  here,  and  fitter  for  other  assemblies  than  this. 
Sir,  the  gentleman  seems  to  forget  where  and  what  we  are. 
This  is  a  Senate,  a  Senate  of  equals,  of  men  of  individual  honor 
and  personal  character,  and  of  absolute  independence.  We 
know  no  masters,  we  acknowledge  no  dictators.  This  is  a  hall 
for  mutual  consultation  and  discussion;  not  an  arena  for  the 
exhibition  of  champions.  I  offer  myself,  Sir,  as  a  match  for  no 
man ;  I  throw  the  challenge  of  debate  at  no  man's  feet.  But 
then,  Sir,  since  the  honorable  member  has  put  the  question  in  a 
manner  that  calls  for  an  answer,  I  will  give  him  an  answer; 
and  I  tell  him,  that,  holding  myself  to  be  the  humblest  of  the 
members  here,  I  yet  know  nothing  in  the  arm  of  his  friend  from 
Missouri,  either  alone  or  when  aided  by  the  arm  of  his  friend 
from  South  Carolina,  that  need  deter  even  me  from  espousing 
whatever  opinions  I  may  choose  to  espouse,  from  debating 
whenever  I  may  choose  to  debate,  or  from  speaking  whatever  I 
may  see  fit  to  say,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  Sir,  when  ut- 
tered as  matter  of  commendation  or  compliment,  I  should  dis- 
sent from  nothing  which  the  honorable  member  might  say  of 
his  friend.  Still  less  do  I  put  forth  any  pretensions  of  my  own. 
But  when  put  to  me  as  matter  of  taunt,  I  throw  it  back,  and 
say  to  the  gentleman,  that  he  could  possibly  say  nothing  less 
likely  than  such  a  comparison  to  wound  my  pride  of  personal 
character.  The  anger  of  its  tone  rescued  the  remark  from  in- 
tentional irony,  which  otherwise,  probably,  would  have  been  its 
general  acceptation.  But,  Sir,  if  it  be  imagined  that  by  this 
mutual  quotation  and  commendation ;  if  it  be  supposed  that,  by 
casting  the  characters  of  the  drama,  assigning  to  each  his  part, 
to  one  the  attack,  to  another  the  ciy  of  onset;  or  if  it  be 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     275 

thought  that,  by  a  loud  and  empty  vaunt  of  anticipated  vic- 
tory, any  laurels  are  to  be  won  here ;  if  it  be  imagined,  espe- 
cially, that  any,  or  all  these  things  will  shake  any  purpose  of 
mine,  I  can  tell  the  honorable  member,  once  for  all,  that  he  is 
greatly  mistaken,  and  that  he  is  dealing  with  one  of  w  hose  tem- 
per and  character  he  has  yet  much  to  learn.  Sir,  I  shall  not 
allow  myself,  on  this  occasion,  I  hope  on  no  occasion,  to  be  be- 
trayed into  any  loss  of  temper;  but  if  provoked,  as  I  trust  I 
never  shall  be,  into  crimination  and  recrimination,  the  honorable 
member  may  perhaps  find  that,  in  that  contest,  there  will  be 
blows  to  take  as  well  as  blows  to  give;  that  others  can  state 
comparisons  as  significant,  at  least,  as  his  own,  and  that  his 
impunity  may  possibly  demand  of  him  whatever  powers  of 
taunt  and  sarcasm  he  may  possess.  I  commend  him  to  a  pru- 
dent husbandry  of  his  resources. 

But,  Sir,  the  Coalition  !  The  Coalition !  Ay,  "  the  murdered 
Coalition ! "  The  gentleman  asks,  if  I  were  led  or  frighted  into 
this  debate  by  the  spectre  of  the  Coalition.  "  Was  it  the  ghost 
of  the  murdered  Coalition,"  he  exclaims,  "which  haunted  the 
member  from  Massachusetts ;  and  which,  like  the  ghost  of  Ban- 
quo,  would  never  down  ?  "  "  The  murdered  Coalition ! "  Sir, 
this  charge  of  a  coalition,  in  reference  to  the  late  administration, 
is  not  original  with  the  honorable  member.  It  did  not  spring  up 
in  the  Senate.  Whether  as  a  fact,  as  an  argument,  or  as  an 
embellishment,  it  is  all  borrowed.  He  adopts  it,  indeed,  from  a 
very  low  origin,  and  a  still  lower  present  condition.  It  is  one 
of  the  thousand  calumnies  with  which  the  press  teemed,  during 
an  excited  political  canvass.  It  was  a  charge,  of  which  there 
was  not  only  no  proof  or  probability,  but  which  was  in  itself 
wholly  impossible  to  be  true.  No  man  of  common  information 
ever  believed  a  syllable  of  it.  Yet  it  was  of  that  class  of  false- 
hoods, which,  by  continued  repetition,  through  all  the  organs  of 
detraction  and  abuse,  are  capable  of  misleading  those  who  are 
already  far  misled,  and  of  further  fanning  passion  already  kin- 
dling into  flame.  Doubtless  it  served  in  its  day,  and  in  greater 
or  less  degree,  the  end  designed  by  it.  Having  done  that,  it  has 
sunk  into  the  general  mass  of  stale  and  loathed  calumnies.  It 
is  the  very  cast-off  slough  of  a  polluted  and  shameless  press. 
Incapable  of  further  mischief,  it  lies  in  the  srwer,  lifeless  and 
despised.  It  is  not  now,  Sir,  in  the  power  f  the  honorable 


276     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

member  to  give  it  dignity  or  decency,  by  attempting  to  elevate 
it,  and  to  introduce  it  into  the  Senate.  He  cannot  change  it 
from  what  it  is,  an  object  of  general  disgust  and  scorn.  On  the 
contrary,  the  contact,  if  he  choose  to  touch  it,  is  more  likely  to 
drag  him  down,  down,  to  the  place  where  it  lies  itself. 
0  But,  Sir,  the  honorable  member  was  not,  for  other  reasons, 
entirely  happy  in  his  allusion  to  the  story  of  Banquo's  murder 
and  Banquo's  ghost.  It  was  not,  I  think,  the  friends,  but  the 
enemies  of  the  murdered  Banquo,  at  whose  bidding  his  spiri 
would  not  down.  The  honorable  gentleman  is  fresh  in  his  read- 
ing of  the  English  classics,  and  can  put  me  right  if  I  am  wrong ; 
but,  according  to  my  poor  recollection,  it  was  at  those  who  had 
begun  with  caresses  and  ended  with  foul  and  treacherous  mur- 
der that  the  gory  locks  were  shaken.  The  ghost  of  Banquo, 
like  that  of  Hamlet,  was  an  honest  ghost.  It  disturbed  no  inno- 
cent man.  It  knew  where  its  appearance  would  strike  terror, 
and  who  would  cry  out,  A  ghost!  It  made  itself  visible  in  the 
right  quarter,  and  compelled  the  guilty  and  the  conscience- 
smitten,  and  none  others,  to  start,  with, 

"  Pr'ythee.  see  there !  behold !  — look  !  lo 
If  1  stand  here,  I  saw  him !  " 

THEIR  eyeballs  were  seared  (was  it  not  so,  Sir  ?)  who  had 
thought  to  shield  themselves  by  concealing  their  own  hand,  and 
laying  the  imputation  ol  the  crime  on  a  low  and  hireling  agency 
in  wickedness;  who  had  vainly  attempted  to  stifle  the  workings 
of  their  own  coward  consciences  by  ejaculating  through  white 
lips  and  chattering  teeth,  "Thou  canst  not  say  I  did  it!"  I 
have  misread  the  great  poet  if  those  who  had  no  way  partaken 
in  the  deed  of  the  death,  either  found  that  they  were,  or  feared 
that  they  should  be,  pushed  from  their  stools  by  the  ghost  of  the 
slain,  or  exclaimed  to  a  spectre  created  by  their  own  fears  and 
their  own  remorse,  "  Avaunt!  and  quit  our  sight!" 

There  is  another  particular,  Sir,  in  which  the  honorable  mem- 
ber's quick  perception  of  resemblances  might,  I  should  think, 
have  seen  something  in  the  story  of  Banquo,  making  it  not  alto- 
gether a  subject  of  the  most  pleasant  contemplation.  Those 
who  murdered  Banquo,  what  did  they  win  by  it  ?  Substantial 
good  ?  Permanent  power  ?  Or  disappointment,  rather,  and  sore 
mortification ;  dust  and  ashes,  the  common  fate  of  vaulting 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  277 

ambition  overleaping  itself?  Did  not  even-handed  justice  ere 
long  commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to  their  own  lips  ?  Did  they 
not  soon  find  that  for  another  they  had  "  filed  their  mind  "  ?  that 
their  ambition,  though  apparently  for  the  moment  successful,  had 
but  put  a  barren  sceptre  in  their  grasp  ?  Ay,  Sir, 

"  a  barren  sceptre  in  their  gripe, 
Thence  to  be  wrenched  with  an  unlineal  hand, 
No  son  of  theirs  succeeding." 

{  Sir,  I  need  pursue  the  allusion  no  farther.  I  leave  the  honor- 
able gentleman  to  run  it  out  at  his  leisure,  and  to  .derive  from  it 
all  the  gratification  it  is  calculated  to  administer.  If  he  finds 
himself  pleased  with  the  associations,  and  prepared  to  be  quite 
satisfied,  though  the  parallel  should  be  entirely  completed,  I  had 
almost  said,  I  am  satisfied  also ;  but  that  I  shall  think  of.  Yes, 
Sir,  I  will  think  of  that. 

1  >-  In  the  course  of  my  observations  the  other  day,  Mr.  President, 
I  paid  a  passing  tribute  of  respect  to  a  very  worthy  man,  Mr. 
Dane  of  Massachusetts.  It  so  happened  that  he  drew  the  Ordi- 
nance of  1787,  for  the  government  of  the  Northwestern  Terri- 
tory. A  man  of  so  much  ability,  and  so  little  pretence ;  of  so 
great  a  capacity  to  do  good,  and  so  unmixed  a  disposition  to  do 
it  for  its  own  sake ;  a  gentleman  who  had  acted  an  important 
part,  forty  years  ago,  in  a  measure  the  influence  of  which  is  still 
deeply  felt  in  the  very  matter  which  was  the  subject  of  debate, 
might,  I  thought,  receive  from  me  a  commendatory  recognition. 
But  the  honorable  member  was  inclined  to  be  facetious  on  the 
subject.  He  was  rather  disposed  to  make  it  matter  of  ridicule, 
that  I  had  introduced  into  the  debate  the  name  of  one  Nathan 
Dane,  of  whom  he  assures  us  he  had  never  before  heard.  Sir, 
if  the  honorable  member  had  never  before  heard  of  Mr.  Dane,  I 
am  sorry  for  it.  It  shows  him  less  acquainted  with  the  public 
men  of  the  country  than  I  had  supposed.  Let  me  tell  him, 
however,  that  a  sneer  from  him  at  the  mention  of  the  name  of 
Mr.  Dane  is  in  bad  taste.  It  may  well  be  a  high  -mark  of  am- 
bition, Sir,  either  with  the  honorable  gentleman  or  myself,  to 
accomplish  as  much  to  make  our  names  known  to  advantage, 
and  remembered  with  gratitude,  as  Mr.  Dane  has  accomplished. 
But  the  truth  is,  Sir,  I  suspect,  that  Mr.  Dane  lives  a  little  too 
far  north.  He  is  of  Massachusetts,  and  too  near  the  north  star 
to  be  reached  by  the  honorable  gentleman's  telescope.  If  his 
VOL.  in.  24 


78  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

sphere  had  happened  to  range  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line, 
he  might,  probably,  have  come  within  the  scope  of  his  vision. 

I  spoke,  Sir,  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which  prohibits  slav- 
ery, in  all  future  times,  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  as  a  measure  of 
great  wisdom  and  foresight,  and  one  which  had  been  attended 
with  highly  beneficial  and  permanent  consequences.  I  sup- 
posed that,  on  this  point,  no  two  gentlemen  in  the  Senate  could 
entertain  different  opinions.  But  the  simple  expression  of  this 
sentiment  has  led  the  gentleman,  not  only  into  a  labored  defence 
of  slavery,  in  t  the  abstract,  and  on  principle,  but  also  into  a 
warm  accusation  against  me,  as  having  attacked  the  system  of 
domestic  slavery  now  existing  in  the  Southern  States.  For  all 
this,  there  was  not  the  slightest  foundation,  in  any  thing  said  or 
intimated  by  me.  I  did  not  utter  a  single  word  which  any  inge- 
nuity could  torture  into  an  attack  on  the  slavery  of  the  South. 
I  said,  only,  that  it  was  highly  wise  and  useful,  in  legislating  for 
the  Northwestern  country  while  it  was  yet  a  wilderness,  to  pro- 
hibit the  introduction  of  slaves;  and  I  added,  that  I  presumed 
there  was  no  reflecting  and  intelligent  person,  in  the  neigh- 
boring State  of  Kentucky,  who  would  doubt  that,  if  the  same 
prohibition  had  been  extended,  at  the  same  early  period,  over 
that  commonwealth,  her  strength  and  population  would,  at  this 
day,  have  been  far  greater  than  they  are.  If  these  opinions  be 
thought  doubtful,  they  are  nevertheless,  I  trust,  neither  extra- 
ordinary nor  disrespectful.  They  attack  nobody  and  menace 
nobody.  And  yet,  Sir,  the  gentleman's  optics  have  discovered, 
even  in  the  mere  expression  of  this  sentiment,  what  he  calls  the 
very  spirit  of  the  Missouri  question !  He  represents  me  as  mak- 
ing an  onset  on  the  whole  South,  and  manifesting  a  spirit  which 
would  interfere  with,  and  disturb,  their  domestic  condition ! 

Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  surprises  me,  than  as  it  is  com- 
mitted her<%  and  committed  without  the  slightest  pretence  of 
ground  for  it  I  say  it  only  surprises  me  as  being  done  here ; 
for  I  know  full  well,  that  it  is,  and  has  been,  the  settled  policy 
of  some  persons  in  the  South,  for  years,  to  represent  the  people 
of  the  North  as  disposed  to  interfere  with  them  in  their  own 
exclusive  and  peculiar  concerns.  This  is  a  delicate  and  sensi- 
tive point  in  Southern  feeling ;  and  of  late  years  it  has  always 
been  touched,  and  generally  with  effect,  whenever  the  object 
has  been  to  unite  the  whole  South  against  Northern  men  or 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     279 

Northern  measures.  This  feeling,  always  carefully  kept  alive, 
and  maintained  at  too  intense  a  heat  to  admit  discrimination  or 
reflection,  is  a  lever  of  great  power  in  our  political  machine.  It 
moves  vast  bodies,  and  gives  to  them  one  and  the  same  direc- 
tion. But  it  is  without  adequate  cause,  and  the  suspicion  which 
exists  is  wholly  groundless.  There  is  not,  and  never  has  been, 
a  disposition  in  the  North  to  interfere  with  these  interests  of 
the  South.  Such  interference  has  never  been  supposed  to  be 
within  the  power  of  government;  nor  has  it  been  in  any  way 
attempted.  The  slavery  of  the  South  has  always  been  regarded 
as  a  matter  of  domestic  policy,  left  with  the  States  themselves, 
and  with  which  the  federal  government  had  nothing  to  do.  Cer- 
tainly, Sir,  I  am,  and  ever  have  been,  of  that  opinion.  The 
gentleman,  indeed,  argues  that  slavery,  in  the  abstract,  is  no 
evil.  Most  assuredly  I  need  not  say  I  differ  with  him,  altogether 
and  most  widely,  on  that  point.  I  regard  domestic  slavery  as 
one  of  the  greatest  evils,  both  moral  and  political.  But  whether 
it  be  a  malady,  and  whether  it  be  curable,  and  if  so,  by  what 
means ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  be  the  vulnus  immedi- 
cabile  of  the  social  system,  I  leave  it  to  those  whose  right  and 
duty  it  is  to  inquire  and  to  decide.  And  this  I  believe,  Sir,  is, 
and  uniformly  has  been,  the  sentiment  of  the  North.  Let  us 
look  a  little  at  the  history  of  this  matter. 

When  the  present  Constitution  was  submitted  for  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  people,  there  were  those  who  imagined  that  the 
powers  of  the  government  which  it  proposed  to  establish  might, 
in  some  possible  mode,  be  exerted  in  measures  tending  to  the 
abolition  of  slavery.  This  suggestion  would  of  course  attract 
much  attention  in  the  Southern  conventions.  In  that  of  Vir- 
ginia, Governor  Randolph  said :  — 

"  I  hope  there  is  none  here,  who,  considering  the  subject  in 
the  calm  light  of  philosophy,  will  make  an  objection  dishonorable 
to  Virginia ;  that,  at  the  moment  they  are  securing  the  rights 
of  their  citizens,  an  objection  is  started,  that  there  is  a  spark  of 
hope  that  those  unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage  may,  by 
the  operation  of  the  general  government,  be  made  free." 

At  the  very  first  Congress,  petitions  on  the  subject  were  pre- 
sented, if  I  mistake  not,  from  different  States.  The  Pennsyl- 
vania society  for  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery  took  a  lead, 
and  laid  before  Congress  a  memorial,  praying  Congress  to  pro 


280  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

mote  the  abolition  by  such,  powers  as  it  possessed.  This  me- 
morial was  referred,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  a  select 
committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Foster,  of  New  Hampshire,  Mr. 
Gerry  of  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Huntington  of  Connecticut,  Mr. 
Lawrence  of  New  York,  Mr.  Sinnickson  of  New  Jersey,  Mr. 
Hartley  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Mr.  Parker  of  Virginia ;  all  of 
them,  Sir,  as  you  will  observe,  Northern  men  but  the  last.  This 
committee  made  a  report,  which  was  referred  to  a  committee 
of  the  whole  House,  and  there  considered  and  discussed  for 
several  days;  and  being  amended,  although  without  material 
alteration,  it  was  made  to  express  three  distinct  propositions,  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade.  First,  in  the  words 
01  the  Constitution,  that  Congress  could  not,  prior  to  the  year 
1808,  prohibit  the  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as 
any  of  the  States  then  existing  should  think  proper  to  admit; 
and  secondly,  that  Congress  had  authority  to  restrain  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  from  carrying  on  the  African  slave-trade, 
for  the  purpose  of  supplying  foreign  countries.  On  this  propo- 
sition, our  early  laws  against  those  who  engage  in  that  traffic 
are  founded.  The  third  proposition,  and  that  which  bears  on 
the  present  question,  was  expressed  in  the  following  terms :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  Congress  have  no  authority  to  interfere  in  the 
emancipation  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of  them  in  any  of  the 
States ;  it  remaining  with  the  several  States  alone  to  provide 
rules  and  regulations  therein  which  humanity  and  true  policy 
may  require." 

This  resolution  received  the  sanction  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives so  early  as  March,  1790.  And  now,  Sir,  the  honor- 
able member  will  allow  me  to  remind  him,  that  not  only  were 
the  select  committee  who  reported  the  resolution,  with  a  single 
exception,  all  Northern  men,  but  also  that,  of  the  members  then 
composing  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  large  majority,  I  be- 
lieve nearly  two  thirds,  were  Northern  men  also. 

The  House  agreed  to  insert  these  resolutions  in  its  journal 
and  from  that  day  to  this  it  has  never  been  maintained  or  con- 
tended at  the  North,  that  Congress  had  any  authority  to  regulate 
or  interfere  with  the  condition  of  slaves  in  the  several  States. 
No  Northern  gentleman,  to  my  knowledge,  has  moved  any  such 
question  in  either  House  of  Congress. 

The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears  they  might  have  enter- 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  281 

tained,  were  allayed  and  quieted  by  this, early  decision;  and  so 
remained  till  they  were  excited  afresh,  without  cause,  but  for 
collateral  and  indirect  purposes.  When  it  became  necessary,  or 
was  thought  so,  by  some  political  persons,  to  find  an  unvarying 
ground  for  the  exclusion  of  Northern  men  from  confidence  and 
from  lead  in  the  affairs  of  the  republic,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
the  cry  was  raised,  and  the  feeling  industriously  excited,  that  the 
influence  of  Northern  men  in  the  public  counsels  would  endan- 
ger the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  For  myself,  I  claim  no 
other  merit  than  that  this  gross  and  enormous  injustice  towards 
the  whole  North  has  not  wrought  upon  me  to  change  my  opin- 
ions or  my  political  conduct.  I  hope  I  am  above  violating  my 
principles,  even  under  the  smart  of  injury  and  false  imputations. 
Unjust  suspicions  and  undeserved  reproach,  whatever  pain  I 
may  experience  from  them,  will  not  induce  me,  I  trust,  to  over- 
step the  limits  of  constitutional  duty,  or  to  encroach  on  the 
rights  of  others.  The  domestic  slavery  of  the  Southern  States  I 
leave  where  I  find  it,  —  in  the  hands  of  their  own  governments. 
It  is  their  affair,  not  mine.  Nor  do  I  complain  of  the  peculiar 
effect  which  the  magnitude  of  that  population  has  had  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  power  under  this  federal  government.  We  know, 
Sir,  that  the  representation  of  the  States  in  the  other  house 
is  not  equal.  We  know  that  great  advantage  in  that  respect  is 
enjoyed  by  the  slave-holding  States ;  and  we  know,  too,  that 
the  intended  equivalent  for  that  advantage,  that  is  to  say,  the 
imposition  of  direct  taxes  in  the  same  ratio,  has  become  merely 
nominal,  the  habit  of  the  government  being  almost  invariably  to 
collect  its  revenue  from  other  sources  and  in  other  modes. 
Nevertheless,  I  do  not  complain ;  nor  would  I  countenance  any 
movement  to  alter  this  arrangement  of  representation.  It  is  the 
original  bargain,  the  compact ;  let  it  stand ;  let  the  advantage  oi 
it  be  fully  enjoyed.  The  Union  itself  is  too  full  of  benefit  to  be 
hazarded  in  propositions  for  changing  its  original  basis.  I  go  for 
the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  for  the  Union  as  it  is.  But  I  am 
resolved  not  to  submit  in  silence  to  accusations,  either  against 
myself  individually  or  against  the  North,  wholly  unfounded  and 
unjust ;  accusations  which  impute  to  us  a  disposition  to  evade 
the  constitutional  compact,  and  to  extend  the  power  of  the 
government  over  the  internal  laws  and  domestic  condition  of  the 
States.  All  such  accusations,  wherever  and  whenever  made,  all 
24* 


282     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

insinuations  of  the  existence-  of  any  such  purposes,  I  kno\v  and 
feel  to  be  groundless  and  injurious.  And  we  must  confide  in 
Southern  gentlemen  themselves ;  we  must  trust  to  those  whose 
integrity  of  heart  and  magnanimity  of  feeling  will  lead  them  to 
a  desire  to  maintain  and  disseminate  truth,  and  who  possess 
the  means  of  its  diffusion  with  the  Southern  public ;  we  must 
leave  it  to  them  to  disabuse  that  public  of  its  prejudices.  But 
in  the  mean  time,  for  my  own  part,  I  shall  continue  to  act. 
justly,  whether  those  towards  whom  justice  is  exercised  receive 
it  with  candor  or  with  contumely. 

Having  had  occasion  to  recur  to  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  in 
order  to  defend  myself  against  the  inferences  which  the  honor- 
able member  has  chosen  to  draw  from  my  former  observations 
on  that  subject,  I  am  not  willing  now  entirely  to  take  leave  of  it 
without  another  remark.  It  need  hardly  be  said,  that  that  paper 
expresses  just  sentiments  on  the  great  subject  of  civil  and  relig- 
ious liberty.  Such  sentiments  were  common,  and  abound  in  all 
our  state  papers  of  that  day.  But  this  Ordinance  did  that 
which  was  not  so  common,  and  which  is  not  even  now  univer- 
sal; that  is,  it  set  forth  and  declared  it  to  be  a  high  and  binding 
duty  of  government  itself  to  support  schools  and  advance  the 
means  of  education,  on  the  plain  reason  that  religion,  morality, 
and  knowledge  are  necessary  to  good  government,  and  to  the 
happiness  of  mankind.  One  observation  further.  The  impor- 
tant provision  incorporated  into  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  into  several  of  those  of  the  States,  and  recently,  as 
we  have  seen,  adopted  into  the  reformed  constitution  of  Virginia, 
restraining  legislative  power  in  questions  of  private  right,  and 
from  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,  is  first  introduced 
and  established,  as  far  as  I  am  informed,  as  matter  of  express 
written  constitutional  law,  in  this  Ordinance  of  1787.  And 
I  must  add,  also,  in  regard  to  the  author  of  the  Ordinance,  who 
has  not  had  the  happiness  to  attract  the  gentleman's  notice 
heretofore,  nor  to  avoid  his  sarcasm  now,  that  he  was  chair- 
man of  that  select  committee  of  the  old  Congress,  whose  report 
first  expressed  the  strong  sense  of  that  body,  that  the  old  Con- 
federation was  not  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  country,  and 
recommended  to  the  .States  to  send  delegates  to  the  convention 
which  formed  the  present  Constitution.* 

*  See  Note  A,  at  the  end  of  the  speech. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  283 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  transfer  from  the  North  to  the 
South  the  honor  of  this  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  North- 
western Territory.  The  journal,  without  argument  or  comment, 
refutes  such  attempts.  The  cession  by  Virginia  was  made  in 
March,  1784.  On  the  19th  of  April  following,  a  committee, 
consisting  of  Messrs.  Jefferson,  Chase,  and  Howell,  reported  a 
plan  for  a  temporary  government  of  the  territory,  in  which  was 
this  article:  "That,  after  the  year  1800,  there  shall  be  neither 
slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any  of  the  said  States,  oth- 
erwise than  in  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 
have  been  convicted."  Mr.  Spaight  of  North  Carolina  moved 
to  strike  out  this  paragraph.  The  question  was  put,  according 
to  the  form  then  practised,  "  Shall  these  words  stand  as  a 
part  of  the  plan?"  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania, 
seven  States,  voted  in  the  affirmative;  Maryland,  Virginia, 
and  South  Carolina,  in  the  negative.  North  Carolina  was  di- 
vided. As  the  consent  of  nine  States  was  necessary,  the  words 
could  not  stand,  and  were  struck  out  accordingly.  Mr.  Jefferson 
voted  for  the  clause,  but  was  overruled  by  his  colleagues. 

In  March  of  the  next  year  (1785),  Mr.  King  of  Massachu- 
setts, seconded  by  Mr.  Ellery  of  Rhode  Island,  proposed  the 
formerly  rejected  article,  with  this  addition  :  "  And  that  this  reg- 
ulation shall  be  an  article  of  compact,  and  remain  a  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  the  constitutions  between  the  thirteen  original 
States,  and  each  of  the  States  described  in  the  resolve."  On 
this  clause,  which  provided  the  adequate  and  thorough  security, 
the  eight  Northern  States  at  that  time  voted  affirmatively,  and 
the  four  Southern  States  negatively.  The  votes  of  nine  States 
were  not  yet  obtained,  and  thus  the  provision  was  again  re- 
jected by  the  Southern  States.  The  perseverance  of  the  North 
held  out,  and  two  years  afterwards  the  object  was  attained.  It 
is  no  derogation  from  the  credit,  whatever  that  may  be,  of  draw- 
ing the  Ordinance,  that  its  principles  had  before  been  prepared 
and  discussed,  in  the  form  of  resolutions.  If  one  should  reason 
in  that  way,  what  would  become  of  the  distinguished  honor  of 
the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ?  There  is  not 
a  sentiment  in  that  paper  which  had  not  been  voted  and  resolved 
in  the  assemblies,  and  other  popular  bodies  in  the  country,  ovei 
and  over  again. 


284     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

But  the  honorable  member  has  now  found  out  that  this  gen- 
tleman, Mr.  Dane,  was  a  member  of  the  Hartford  Convention. 
However  uninformed  the  honorable  member  may  be  of  characters 
and  occurrences  at  the  North,  it  would  seem  that  he  has  at  his 
elbow,  on  this  occasion,  some  high-minded  and  lofty  spirit,  some 
magnanimous  and  true-hearted  monitor,  possessing  the  means 
of  local  knowledge,  and  ready  to  supply  the  honorable  member 
with  every  thing,  down  even  to  forgotten  and  moth-eaten  two- 
penny pamphlets,  which  may  be  used  to  the  disadvantage  of  his 
own  country.  But  as  to  the  Hartford  Convention,  Sir,  allow-me 
to  say,  that  the  proceedings  of  that  body  seem  now  to  be  less  read 
and  studied  in  New  England  than  farther  South.  They  appear 
to  be  looked  to,  not  in  New  England,  but  elsewhere,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  seeing  how  far  they  may  serve  as  a  precedent.  But  they 
will  not  answer  the  purpose,  they  are  quite  too  tame.  The  lati- 
tude in  which  they  originated  was  too  cold.  Other  conventions, 
of  more  recent  existence,  have  gone  a  whole  bar's  length  beyond 
it.  The  learned  doctors  of  Colleton  and  Abbeville  have  pushed 
their  commentaries  on  the  Hartford  collect  so  far,  that  the  orig- 
inal text- writers  are  thrown  entirely  into  the  shade.  I  have 
nothing  to  do,  Sir,  with  the  Hartford  Convention.  Its  journal, 
which  the  gentleman  has  quoted,  I  never  read.  So  far  as  the 
honorable  member  may  discover  in  its  proceedings  a  spirit  in  any 
degree  resembling  that  which  was  avowed  and  justified  in  those 
other  conventions  to  which  I  have  alluded,  or  so  far  as  those 
proceedings  can  be  shown  to  be  disloyal  to  the  Constitution,  or 
tending  to  disunion,  so  far  I  shall  be  as  ready  as  any  one  to 
bestow  on  them  reprehension  and  censure. 

Having  dwelt  long  on  this  convention,  and  other  occurrences 
of  that  day,  in  the  hope,  probably,  (which  will  not  be  gratified,) 
that  I  should  leave  the  course  of  this  debate  to  follow  him  at 
/ength  in  those  excursions,  the  honorable  member  returned,  and 
attempted  another  object.  He  referred  to  a  speech  of  mine  in 
the  other  house,  the  same  which  I  had  occasion  to  allude  to 
myself,  the  other  day;  and  has  quoted  a  passage  or  two  from  it, 
with  a  bold,  though  uneasy  and  laboring,  air  of  confidence,  as 
it  he  had  detected  in  me  an  inconsistency.  Judging  from  the 
gentleman's  manner,  a  stranger  to  the  course  of  the  debate 
and  to  the  point  in  discussion  would  have  imagined,  from  so 
triumphant  a  tone,  that  the  honorable  member  was  about  to 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     285 

overwhelm  me  with  a  manifest  contradiction.  Any  one  who 
heard  him,  and  who  had  not  heard  what  I  had,  in  fact,  previ- 
ously said,  must  have  thought  me  routed  and  discomfited,  as  the 
gentleman  had  promised.  Sir,  a  breath  blows  all  this  triumph 
away.  There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  in  the  purport 
of  my  remarks  on  the  two  occasions.  What  I  said  here  on 
Wednesday  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  opinion  expressed 
by  me  in  the  other  house  in  1825.  Though  the  gentleman  had 
the  metaphysics  of  Hudibras,  though  he  were  able 

"  to  sever  and  divide 
A  hair  'twixt  north  and  northwest  side," 

he  yet  could  not  insert  his  metaphysical  scissors  between  the 
fair  reading  of  my  remarks  in  1825,  and  what  I  said  here  last 
week.  There  is  not  only  no  contradiction,  no  difference,  but,  in 
truth,  too  exact  a  similarity,  both  in  thought  and  language,  to 
be  entirely  in  just  taste.  I  had  myself  quoted  the  same  speech; 
had  recurred  to  it,  and  spoke  with  it  open  before  me  ;  and  much 
of  what  I  said  was  little  more  than  a  repetition  from  it.  In 
order  to  make  finishing  work  with  this  alleged  contradiction, 
permit  me  to  recur  to  the  origin  of  this  debate,  and  review  its 
course.  This  seems  expedient,  and  may  be  done  as  well  now  as 
at  any  time. 

Well,  then,  its  history  is  this.  The  honorable  member  from 
Connecticut  moved  a  resolution,  which  constitutes  the  first 
branch  of  that  which  is  now  before  us ;  that  is  to  say,  a  reso- 
lution, instructing  the  committee  on  public  lands  to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  limiting,  for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands,  to  such  as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for  sale ; 
and  whether  sundry  offices  connected  with  the  sales  of  the  lands 
might  not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to  the  public  service. 
In  the  progress  of  the  discussion  which  arose  on  this  resolution, 
an  honorable  member  from  New  Hampshire  moved  to  amend 
the  resolution,  so  as  entirely  to  reverse  its  object ;  that  is,  to 
strike  it  all  out,  and  insert  a  direction  to  the  committee  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  adopting  measures  to  hasten  the 
sales,  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys,  of  the  lands. 

The  honorable   member  from   Maine*  suggested  that  both 

*  Mr.  Sprague. 


286  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

those  propositions  might  Well  enough  go  for  consideration  to  the 
committee ;  and  in  this  state  of  the  question,  the  member  from 
South  Carolina  addressed  the  Senate  in  his  first  speech.  He 
rose,  he  said,  to  give  us  his  own  free  thoughts  on  the  public 
lands.  I  saw  him  rise  wilh  pleasure,  and  listened  with  expecta- 
tion, though  before  he  concluded  I  was  filled  with  surprise. 
Certainly,  I  was  never  more  surprised,  than  to  find  him  follow- 
ing up,  to  the  extent  he  did,  the  sentiments  and  opinions  which 
the  gentleman  from  Missouri  had  put  forth,  and  which  it  is 
known  he  has  long  entertained. 

I  need  not  repeat  at  large  the  general  topics  of  the  honorable 
gentleman's  speech.  When  he  said  yesterday  that  he  did  not 
attack  the  Eastern  States,  he  certainly  must  have  forgotten,  not 
only  particular  remarks,  but  the  whole  drift  and  tenor  of  his 
speech ;  unless  he  means  by  not  attacking,  that  he  did  not  com- 
mence hostilities,  but  that  another  had  preceded  him  in  the  at- 
tack. He,  in  the  first  place,  disapproved  of  the  whole  course  of 
the  government,  for  forty  years,  in  regard  to  its  disposition  of 
the  public  lands ;  and  then,  turning  northward  and  eastward,  and 
fancying  he  had  found  a  cause  for  alleged  narrowness  and  nig- 
gardliness in  the  "  accursed  policy  "  of  the  tariff,  to  which  he  rep- 
resented the  people  of  New  England  as  wedded,  he  went  on  for 
a  full  hour  with  remarks,  the  whole  scope  of  which  was  to  ex- 
hibit the  results  of  this  policy,  in  feelings  and  in  measures  un- 
favorable to  the  West.  I  thought  his  opinions  unfounded  and 
erroneous,  as  to  the  general  course  of  the  government,  and  ven- 
tured to  reply  to  them. 

The  gentleman  had  remarked  on  the  analogy  of  other  cases, 
and  quoted  the  conduct  of  European  governments  towards  their 
own  subjects  settling  on  this  continent,  as  in  point,  to  show 
that  we  had  been  harsh  and  rigid  in  selling,  when  we  should 
have  given  the  public  lands  to  settlers  without  price.  I  thought 
the  honorable  member  had  suffered  his  judgment  to  be  betrayed 
by  a  false  analogy ;  that  he  was  struck  with  an  appearance  of 
resemblance  where  there  was  no  real  similitude.  I  think  so  still. 
The  first  settlers  of  North  America  were  enterprising  spirits, 
engaged  in  private  adventure,  or  fleeing  from  tyranny  at  home. 
When  arrived  here,  they  were  forgotten  by  the  mother  country, 
or  remembered  only  to  be  oppressed.  Carried  away  again  by 
the  appearance  of  analogy,  or  struck  with  the  eloquence  of  the 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     237 

passage,  the  honorable  member  yesterday  observed,  that  the 
conduct  of  government  towards  the  Western  emigrants,  or  my 
representation  of  it,  brought  to  his  mind  a  celebrated  speech  in 
the  British  Parliament.  It  was,  Sir,  the  speech  of  Colonel 
Barre.  On  the  question  of  the  stamp  act,  or  tea  tax,  I  forget 
which,  Colonel  Barre.  had  heard  a  member  on  the  treasury  bench 
argue,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  being  British  colo- 
nists, planted  by  the  maternal  care,  nourished  by  the  indulgence, 
and  protected  by  the  arms  of  England,  would  not  grudge  their 
mite  to  relieve  the  mother  country  from  the  heavy  burden  under 
which  she  groaned.  The  language  of  Colonel  Barre,  in  reply  to 
this,  was,  — "  They  planted  by  your  care  ?  'Your  oppression 
planted  them  in  America.  They  fled  from  your  tyranny,  and 
grew  by  your  neglect  of  them.  So  soon  as  you  began  to  care 
for  them,  you  showed  your  care  by  sending  persons  to  spy  out 
their  liberties,  misrepresent  their  character,  prey  upon  them,  and 
eat  out  their  substance." 

And  how  does  the  honorable  gentleman  mean  to  maintain, 
that  language  like  this  is  applicable  to  the  conduct  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  towards  the  Western  emigrants, 
or  to  any  representation  given  by  me  of  that  conduct  ?  Were 
the  settlers  in  the  West  driven  thither  by  our  oppression  ?  Have 
they  flourished  only  by  our  neglect  of  them  ?  Has  the  gov- 
ernment done  nothing  but  prey  upon  them,  and  eat  out  their 
substance?  Sir,  this  fervid  eloquence  of  the  British  speaker, 
just  when  and  where  it  was  uttered,  and  fit  to  remain  an  exer- 
cise for  the  schools,  is  not  a  little  out  of  place,  when  it  is  brought 
thence  to  be  applied  here,  to  the  conduct  of  our  own  country 
towards  her  own  citizens.  From  America  to  England,  it  may 
be  true ;  from  Americans  to  their  own  government,  it  would  be 
strange  language.  Let  us  leave  it,  to  be  recited  and  declaimed 
by  our  boys  against  a  foreign  nation ;  not  introduce  it  here,  to 
recite  and  declaim  ourselves  against  our  own. 

But  I  come  to  the  point  of  the  alleged  contradiction.  In  my 
remarks  on  Wednesday,  I  contended  that  we  could  not  give 
axvay  gratuitously  all  the  public  lands;  that  we  held  them  in 
trust ;  that  the  government  had  solemnly  pledged  itself  to  dis- 
pose of  them  as  a  common  fund  for  the  common  benefit,  and  to 
sell  and  settle  them  as  its  discretion  should  dictate.  Now,  Sir, 
what  contradiction  does  the  gentleman  find  to  this  sentiment  in 


238  SECOND   SPEECH   ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

the  speech  of  1825?  He  quotes  me  as  having  then  said,  that 
we  ought  not  to  hug  these  lands  as  a  very  great  treasure.  Very 
well,  Sir,  supposing  me  to  be  accurately  reported  in  that  expres- 
sion, what  is  the  contradiction  ?  I  have  not  now  said,  that  we 
should  hug  these  lands  as  a  favorite  source  of  pecuniary  income. 
No  such  thing.  It  is  not  my  view.  What  I  have  said,  and 
what  I  do  say,  is,  that  they  are  a  common  fund,  to  be  disposed 
of  for  the  common  benefit,  to  be  sold  at  low  prices  for  the  accom- 
modation of  settlers,  keeping  the  object  of  settling  the  lands  as 
much  in  view  'as  that  of  raising  money  from  them.  This  I  say 
now,  and  this  I  have  always  said.  Is  this  hugging  them  as  a 
favorite  treasure  ?  Is  there  no  difference  between  hugging  and 
hoarding  this  fund,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  great  treasure,  and,  on 
the  other,  of  disposing  of  it  at  low  prices,  placing  the  proceeds 
in  the  general  treasury  of  the  Union  ?  My  opinion  is,  that  as 
much  is  to  be  made  of  the  land  as  fairly  and  reasonably  may 
be,  selling  it  all  the  while  at  such  rates  as  to  give  the  fullest  effect 
to  settlement.  This  is  not  giving  it  all  away  to  the  States,  as 
the  gentleman  would  propose  ;  nor  is  it  hugging  the  fund  closely 
and  tenaciously,  as  a  favorite  treasure;  but  it  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, a  just  and  wise  policy,  perfectly  according  with  all  the 
various  duties  which  rest  on  government.  So  much  for  my  con- 
tradiction. And  what  is  it  ?  Where  is  the  ground  of  the  gentle- 
man's triumph  ?  What  inconsistency  in  word  or  doctrine  has 
he  been  able  to  detect  ?  Sir,  if  this  be  a  sample  of  that  discom- 
fiture with  which  the  honorable  gentleman  threatened  me,  com- 
mend me  to  the  word  discomfiture  for  the  rest  of  my  life. 

But,  after  all,  this  is  not  the  point  of  the  debate ;  and  I  must 
now  bring  the  gentleman  back  to  what  is  the  point. 

The  real  question  between  me  and  him  is,  Has  the  doctrine 
been  advanced  at  the  South  or  the  East,  that  the  population  of 
the  West  should  be  retarded,  or  at  least  need  not  be  hastened, 
on  account  of  its  effect  to  drain  off  the  people  from  the  Atlantic 
States?  Is  this  doctrine,  as  has  been  alleged,  of  Eastern  ori- 
gin ?  That  is  the  question.  Has  the  gentleman  found  any 
thing  by  which  he  can  make  good  his  accusation  ?  I  submit  to 
the  Senate,  that  he  has  entirely  failed ;  and,  as  far  as  this  debate 
has  shown,  the  only  person  who  has  advanced  such  sentiments 
is  a  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  and  a  friend  of  the  honor- 
able member  himself.  The  honorable  gentleman  has  given  no 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  289 

answer  to  this ;  there  is  none  which  can  be  given.  The  simple 
fact,  while  it  requires  no  comment  to  enforce  it,  defies  all  argu- 
ment to  refute  it.  I  could  refer  to  the  speeches  of  another 
Southern  gentleman,  in  years  before,  of  the  same  general  char- 
acter, and  to  the  same  effect,  as  that  which  has  been  quoted ; 
but  I  will  not  consume  the  time  of  the  Senate  by  the  reading 
of  them. 

So  then,  Sir,  New  England  is  guiltless  of  the  policy  of  retard- 
ing Western  population,  and  of  all  envy  and  jealousy  of  the 
growth  of  the  new  States.  Whatever  there  be  of  that  policy  in 
the  country,  no  part  of  it  is  hers.  If  it  has  a  local  habitation, 
the  honorable  member  has  probably  seen  by  this  time  where  to 
look  for  it ;  and  if  it  now  has  received  a  name,  he  has  himself 
christened  it. 

We  approach,  at  length,  Sir,  to  a  more  important  part  of  the 
honorable  gentleman's  observations.  Since  it  does  not  accord 
with  my  views  of  justice  and  policy  to  give  away  the  public 
lands  altogether,  as  a  mere  matter  of  gratuity,  I  am  asked  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  on  what  ground  it  is  that  I  consent  to 
vote  them  away  in  particular  instances.  How,  he  inquires,  do 
I  reconcile  with  these  professed  sentiments,  my  support  of  meas- 
ures appropriating  portions  of  the  lands  to  particular  roads,  par- 
ticular canals,  particular  rivers,  and  particular  institutions  of 
education  in  the  West  ?  '  This  leads,  Sir,  to  the  real  and  wide 
difference  in  political  opinion  between  the  honorable  gentleman 
and  myself.  On  my  part,  I  look  upon  all  these  objects  as  con- 
nected with  the  common  good,  fairly  embraced  in  its  object  and 
its  terms ;  he,  on  the  contrary,  deems  them  all,  if  good  at  all, 
only  local  good.  This  is  our  difference.  The  interrogatory 
which  he  proceeded  to  put,  at  once  explains  this  difference. 
"  What  interest,"  asks  he,  "  has  South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in 
Ohio  ?  "  Sir,  this  very  question  is  full  of  significance.  It  de- 
velops the  gentleman's  whole  political  system ;  and  its  answer 
expounds  mine.  Here  we  differ.  I  look  upon  a  road  over  the 
Alleghanies,  a  canal  round  the  falls  of  the  Ohio,  or  a  canal  or 
railway  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Western  waters,  as  being  an 
object  large  and  extensive  enough  to  be  fairly  said  to  be  for  the 
common  benefit.  The  gentleman  thinks  otherwise,  and  this 
is  the  key  to  his .  construction  of  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment. He  may  well  ask  what  interest  has  South  Carolina  in  a 

VOL.  in.  25 


290  SECOND   SPEECH  OH   fOOTS  RESOLUTION. 

canal  in  Ohio.  On  his  system,  it  is  true,  she  has  no  interest. 
On  that  system,  Ohio  and  Carolina  are  different  governments, 
and  different  countries  ;  connected  here,  it  is  true,  by  some  slight 
and  ill-defined  bond  of  union,  but  in  all  main  respects  separate 
and  diverse.  On  that  system,  Carolina  has  no  more  interest  in 
a  canal  in  Ohio  than  in  Mexico.  The  gentleman,  therefore, 
only  follows  out  his  own  principles ;  he  does  no  more  than  arrive 
at  the  natural  conclusions  of  his  own  doctrines;  he  only  an- 
nounces the  true  results  of  that  creed  which  he  has  adopted 
himself,  and  would  persuade  others  to  adopt,  when  he  thus  de- 
clares that  South  Carolina  has  no  interest  in  a  public  work  in 
Ohio. 

Sir,  we  narrow-minded  people  of  New  England  do  not  reason 
thus.  Our  notion  of  things  is  entirely  different.  We  look  upon 
the  States,  not  as  separated,  but  as  united.  We  love  to  dwell 
on  that  union,  and  on  the  mutual  happiness  which  it  has  so 
much  promoted,  and  the  common  renown  which  it  has  so  great- 
ly contributed  to  acquire.  In  our  contemplation,  Carolina  and 
Ohio  are  parts  of  the  same  country ;  States,  united  under  the 
same  general  government,  having  interests,  common,  associated, 
intermingled.  In  whatever  is  within  the  proper  sphere  of  the 
constitutional  power  of  this  government,  we  look  upon  the 
States  as  one.  We  do  not  impose  geographical  limits  to  our 
patriotic  feeling  or  regard ;  we  do  not  follow  rivers  and  moun- 
tains, and  lines  of  latitude,  to  find  boundaries,  beyond  which 
public  improvements  do  not  benefit  us.  We  who  come  here, 
as  agents  and  representatives  of  these  narrow-minded  and  self- 
ish men  of  New  England,  consider  ourselves  as  bound  to  re- 
gard with  an  equal  eye  the  good  of  the  whole,  in  whatever  is 
within  our  powers  of  legislation.  Sir,  if  a  railroad  or  canal, 
beginning  in  South  Carolina  and  ending  in  South  Carolina, 
appeared  to  me  to  be  of  national  importance  and  national  mag- 
nitude, believing,  as  I  do,  that  the  power  of  government  extends 
to  the  encouragement  of  works  of  that  description,  if  I  were  to 
stand  up  here  and  ask,  What  interest  has  Massachusetts  in  a 
railroad  in  South  Carolina  ?  I  should  not  be  willing  to  face  my 
constituents.  These  same  narrow-minded  men  would  tell  me, 
that  they  had  sent  me  to  act  for  the  whole  country,  and  that 
one  who  possessed  too  little  comprehension,  either  of  intellect  or 
feeling,  one  who  was  not  large  enough,  both  in  mind  and  in 


SECOND   SPEECH   ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  291 

heart,  to  embrace  the  whole,  was  not  fit  to  be  intrusted  with  the 
interest  of  any  part. 

Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  government 
by  unjustifiable  construction,  nor  to  exercise  any  not  within  a 
fair  interpretation.  But  when  it  is  believed  that  a  power  does 
exist,  then  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  exercised  for  the  general 
benefit  of  the  whole.  So  far  as  respects  the  exercise  of  such  a 
power,  the  States  are  one.  It  was  the  very  object  of  the  Con- 
stitution to  create  unity  of  interests  to  the  extent  of  the  powers 
of  the  general  government.  In  war  and  peace  we  are  one ;  in 
commerce,  one ;  because  the  authority  of  the  general  government 
reaches  to  war  and  peace,  and  to  the  regulation  of  commerce. 
I  have  never  seen  any  more  difficulty  in  erecting  lighthouses  on 
the  lakes,  than  on  the  ocean ;  in  improving  the  harbors  of  inland 
seas,  than  if  they  were  within  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide ;  or 
in  removing  obstructions  in  the  vast  streams  of  the  West,  more 
than  in  any  work  to  facilitate  commerce  on  the  Atlantic  coast 
If  there  be  any  power  for  one,  there  is  power  also  for  the  other ; 
and  they  are  all  and  equally  for  the  common  good  of  the 
country. 

There  are  other  objects,  apparently  more  local,  or  the  benefit 
of  which  is  less  general,  towards  which,  nevertheless,  I  have  con- 
curred with  others,  to  give  aid  by  donatipns  of  land.  It  is  pro- 
posed to  construct  a  road,  in  or  through  one  of  the  new  States, 
in  which  this  government  possesses  large  quantities  of  land. 
Have  the  United  States  no  right,  or,  as  a  great  and  untaxed 
proprietor,  are  they  under  no  obligation  to  contribute  to  an 
object  thus  calculated  to  promote  the  common  good  of  all  the 
proprietors,  themselves  included?  And  even  with  respect  to 
education,  which  is  the  extreme  case,  let  the  question  be  con- 
sidered. In  the  first  place,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  made  mat- 
ter of  compact  with  these  States,  that  they  should  do  their  part 
to  promote  education.  In  the  next  place,  our  whole  system  of 
land  laws  proceeds  on  the  idea  that  education  is  for  the  common 
good ;  because,  in  every  division,  a  certain  portion  is  uniformly 
reserved  and  appropriated  for  the  use  of  schools.  And,  finally, 
have  not  these  new  States  singularly  strong  claims,  founded  on 
the  ground  already  stated,  that  the  government  is  a  great  un- 
taxed proprietor,  in  the  ownership  of  tne  soil  ?  It  is  a  consider- 
ation of  great  importance,  that  probably  there  is  in  no  part  of 


292  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

the  country,  or  of  the  world,  so  great  call  for  the  means  of  edu- 
cation, as  in  these  new  States,  owing  to  the  vast  numbers  of 
persons  within  those  ages  in  which  education  and  instruction 
are  usually  received,  if  received  at  all.  This  is  the  natural  con- 
sequence of  recency  of  settlement  and  rapid  increase.  The 
census  of  these  States  shows  how  great  a  proportion  of  the 
whole  population  occupies  the  classes  between  infancy  and 
manhood.  These  are  the  wide  fields,  and  here  is  the  deep  and 
quick  soil  for  the  seeds  of  knowledge  and  virtue ;  and  this  is  the 
favored  season,  the  very  spring-time  for  sowing  them.  Let  them 
be  disseminated  without  stint.  Let  them  be  scattered  with  a 
bountiful  hand,  broadcast.  Whatever  the  government  can  fairly 
do  towards  these  objects,  in  my  opinion,  ought  to  be  done. 

These,  Sir,  are  the  grounds,  succinctly  stated,  on  which  my 
votes  for  grants  of  lands  for  particular  objects  rest;  while  I 
maintain,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  is  all  a  common  fund,  for 
the  common  benefit.  And  reasons  like  these,  I  presume,  have 
influenced  the  votes  of  other  gentlemen  from  New  England. 
Those  who  have  a  different  view  of  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment, of  course,  come  to  different  conclusions,  on  these,  as  on 
other  questions.  I  observed,  when  speaking  on  this  subject  be- 
fore, that  if  we  looked  to  any  measure,  whether  for  a  road,  a 
canal,  or  any  thing  else,  intended  for  the  improvement  of  the 
West,  it  would  be  found  that,  if  the  New  England  ayes  were 
struck  out  of  the  lists  of  votes,  the  Southern  noes  would  always 
have  rejected  the  measure.  The  truth  of  this  has  not  been 
denied,  and  cannot  be  denied.  In  stating  this,  I  thought  it 
just  to  ascribe  it  to  the  constitutional  scruples  of  the  South, 
rather  than  to  any  other  less  favorable  or  less  charitable  cause. 
But  no  sooner  had  I  done  this,  than  the  honorable  gentleman 
asks  if  I  reproach  him  and  his  friends  with  their  constitutional 
scruples.  Sir,  I  reproach  nobody.  I  stated  a  fact,  and  gave  the 
most  respectful  reason  for  it  that  occurred  to  me.  The  gentle- 
man cannot  deny  the  fact ;  he  may,  if  he  choose,  disclaim  the 
reason.  It  is  not  long  since  I  had  occasion,  in  presenting  a 
petition  from  his  own  State,  to  account  for  its  being  intrusted 
to  my  hands,  by  saying,  that  the  constitutional  opinions  of  the 
gentleman  and  his  worthy  colleague  prevented  them1  from  sup- 
porting it.  Sir,  did  I  state  this  as  matter  of  reproach  ?  Far 
from  it.  Did  I  attempt  to  find  any  other  cause  than  an  honest 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     393 

one  for  these  scruples  ?  Sir,  I  did  not.  It  did  not  become  me 
to  doubt  or  to  insinuate  that  the  gentleman  had  either  changed 
his  sentiments,  or  that  he  had  made  up  a  set  of  constitutional 
opinions  accommodated  to  any  particular  combination  of  polit- 
ical occurrences.  Had  I  done  so,  I  should  have  felt,  that,  while 
I  was  entitled  to  little  credit  in  thus  questioning  other  people's 
motives,  I  justified  the  whole  world  in  suspecting  my  own.  But 
how  has  the  gentleman  returned  this  respect  for  others'  opin- 
ions? His  own  candor  and  justice,  how  have  they  been  ex- 
hibited towards  the  motives  of  others,  while  he  has  been  at  so 
much  pains  to  maintain,  what  nobody  has  disputed,  the  purity 
of  his  own  ?  Why,  Sir,  he  has  asked  when,  and  how,  and  why 
New  England  votes  were  found  going  for  measures  favorable  to 
the  West.  He  has  demanded  to  be  informed  whether  all  this 
did  not  begin  in  1825,  and  while  the  election  of  President  was 
still  pending. 

Sir,  to  these  questions  retort  would  be  justified ;  and  it  is  both 
cogent  and  at  hand.  Nevertheless,  I  will  answer  the  inquiry, 
not  by  retort,  but  by  facts.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman  when,  and 
hoy),  and  why  New  England  has  supported  measures  favorable 
to  the  West.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  early  history  of  the 
government,  to  the  first  acquisition  of  the  lands,  to  the  original 
laws  for  disposing  of  them,  and  for  governing  the  territories 
where  they  lie;  and  have  shown  the  influence  of  New  England 
men  and  New  England  principles  in  ah1  these  leading  measures. 
I  should  not  be  pardoned  were  I  to  go  over  that  ground  again. 
Coming  to  more  recent  times,  and  to  measures  of  a  less  general 
character,  I  have  endeavored  to  prove  that  every  thing  of  this 
kind,  designed  for  Western  improvement,  has  depended  on  the 
votes  of  New  England ;  all  this  is  true  beyond  the  power  of 
contradiction.  And  now,  Sir,  there  are  two  measures  to  which 
I  will  refer,  not  so  ancient  as  to  belong  to  the  early  history  of 
the  public  lands,  and  not  so  recent  as  to  be  on  this  side  of  the 
period  when  the  gentleman  charitably  imagines  a  new  direction 
may  have  been  given  to  New  England  feeling  and  New  Eng- 
land votes.  These  measures,  and  the  New  England  votes  in 
support  of  them,  may  be  taken  as  samples  and  specimens  of  all 
the  rest. 

In  1820  (observe,  Mr.  President,  in  1820)  the  people  of  the 
West  besought  Congress  for  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  lands. 
25* 


294  SECOND   SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

In  favor  of  that  reduction,  New  England,  with  a  delegation  of 
forty  members  in  the  other  house,  gave  thirty-three  votes,  and  one 
only  against  it.  The  four  Southern  States,  with  more  than  fifty 
members,  gave  thirty-two  votes  for  it,  and  seven  against  it. 
Again,  in  1821  (observe  again,  Sir,  the  time),  the  law  passed  for 
the  relief  of  the  purchasers  of  the  public  lands.  This  was  a 
measure  of  vital  importance  to  the  West,  and  more  especially  to 
the  Southwest.  It  authorized  the  relinquishment  of  contracts 
for  lands  which  had  been  entered  into  at  high  prices,  and  a  re- 
duction in  other  cases  of  not  less  than  thirty-seven  and  a  half  per 
cent,  on  the  purchase-money.  Many  millions  of  dollars,  six  or 
seven,  I  believe,  probably  much  more,  were  relinquished  by  this 
law.  On  this  bill,  New  England,  with  her  forty  members,  gave 
more  affirmative  votes  than  the  four  Southern  States,  with  their 
fifty-two  or  fifty-three  members.  These  two  are  far  the  most 
important  general  measures  respecting  the  public  lands  which 
have  been  adopted  within  the  last  twenty  years.  They  took 
place  in  1820  and  1821.  That  is  the  time  when. 

As  to  the  manner  how,  the  gentleman  already  sees  that  it  was 
by  voting  in  solid  column  for  the  required  relief;  and,  lastly,  as 
to  the  cause  why,  I  tell  the  gentleman  it  was  because  the  mem- 
bers from  New  England  thought  the  measures  just  and  salutary ; 
because  they  entertained  towards  the  West  neither  envy,  hatred, 
nor  malice ;  because  they  deemed  it  becoming  them,  as  just  and 
enlightened  public  men,  to  meet  the  exigency  which  had  arisen 
in  the  West  with  the  appropriate  measure  of  relief;  because 
they  felt  it  due  to  their  own  characters,  and  the  characters  of 
their  New  England  predecessors  in  this  government,  to  act  to- 
wards the  new  States  in  the  spirit  of  a  liberal,  patronizing,  mag- 
nanimous policy.  So  much,  Sir,  for  the  cause  why ;  and  I  hope 
that  by  this  time,  Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  is  satisfied ;  if 
not,  I  do  not  know  when,  or  how,  or  why  he  ever  will  be. 

Having  recurred  to  these  two  important  measures,  in  answer 
to  the  gentleman's  inquiries,  I  must  now  beg  permission  to 
go  back  to  a  period  somewhat  earlier,  for  the  purpose  of  still 
rurther  showing  how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  reason  there  is 
for  the  gentleman's  insinuation  that  political  hopes  or  fears,  or 
party  associations,  were  the  grounds  of  these  New  England 
votes.  And  after  what  has  been  said,  I  hope  it  may  be  forgiven 
me  if  I  allude  to  some  political  opinions  and  votes  of  my  own. 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON  POOTS   RESOLUTION.  295 

of  very  little  public  importance  certainly,  but  which,  from  the 
time  at  which  they  were  given  and  expressed,  may  pass  for  good 
witnesses  on  this  occasion. 

This  government,  Mr.  President,  from  its  origin  to  the  peace 
of  1815,  had  been  too  much  engrossed  with  various  other  im- 
portant concerns  to  be  able  to  turn  its  thoughts  inward,  and  look 
to  the  development  of  its  vast  internal  resources.  In  the  early 
part  of  President  Washington's  administration,  it  was  fully  oc- 
cupied with  completing  its  own  organization,  providing  for  the 
public  debt,  defending  the  frontiers,  and  maintaining  domestic 
peace.  Before  the  termination  of  that  administration,  the  fires 
of  the  French  Revolution  blazed  forth,  as  from  a  new-opened 
volcano,  and  the  whole  breadth  of  the  ocean  did  not  secure  us 
from  its  effects.  The  smoke  and  the  cinders  reached  us,  though 
not  the  burning  lava.  Difficult  and  agitating  questions,  embar- 
rassing to  government  and  dividing  public  opinion,  sprung  out 
of  the  new  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  and  were  succeeded  by 
others,  and  yet  again  by  others,  equally  embarrassing  and 
equally  exciting  division  and  discord,  through  the  long  series  of 
twenty  years,  till  they  finally  issued  in  the  war  with  England. 
Down  to  the  close  of  that  war,  no  distinct,  marked,  and  deliber- 
ate attention  had  been  given,  or  could  have  been  given,  to  the 
internal  condition  of  the  country,  its  capacities  of  improvement, 
or  the  constitutional  power  of  the  government  in  regard  to  ob- 
jects connected  with  such  improvement. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought  about  an  entirely  new  and 
a  most  interesting  state  of  things ;  it  opened  to  us  other  pros- 
pects and  suggested  other  duties.  We  ourselves  were  changed, 
and  the  whole  world  was  changed.  The  pacification  of  Europe, 
after  June,  1815,  assumed  a  firm  and  permanent  aspect.  The 
nations  evidently  manifested  that  they  were  disposed  for  peace. 
Some  agitation  of  the  waves  might  be  expected,  even  after  t  he 
storm  had  subsided,  but  the  tendency  was,  strongly  and  rapidly, 
towards  settled  repose. 

It  so  happened,  Sir,  that  I  was  at  that  time  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, and,  like  others,  naturally  turned  my  thoughts  to  the  con- 
templation of  the  recently  altered  condition  of  the  country  and 
of  the  world.  It  appeared  plainly  enough  to  me,  as  well  as  to 
wiser  and  more  experienced  men,  that  the  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment would  naturally  take  a  start  in  a  new  direction ;  because 


296     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOTS  RESOLUTION. 

new  directions  would  necessarily  be  given  to  the  pursuits  and 
occupations  of  the  people.  We  had  pushed  our  commerce  far 
and  fast,  under  the  advantage  of  a  neutral  flag.  But  there  were 
now  no  longer  flags,  either  neutral  or  belligerent.  The  harvest 
of  neutrality  had  been  great,  but  we  had  gathered  it  all.  With 
the  peace  of  Europe,  it  was  obvious  there  would  spring  up  in 
her  circle  of  nations  a  revived  and  invigorated  spirit  of  trade,  and 
a  new  activity  in  all  the  business  and  objects  of  civilized  life. 
Hereafter,  our  commercial  gains  were  to  be  earned  only  by  suc- 
cess in  a  close  and  intense  competition.  Other  nations  would 
produce  for  themselves,  and  carry  for  themselves,  and  manufac- 
ture for  themselves,  to  the  full  extent  of  their  abilities.  The 
crops  of  our  plains  would  no  longer  sustain  European  armies, 
nor  our  ships  longer  supply  those  whom  war  had  rendered  un- 
able to  supply  themselves.  It  was  obvious,  that,  under  these 
circumstances,  the  country  would  begin  to  survey  itself,  and  to 
estimate  its  own  capacity  of  improvement. 

And  this  improvement,  —  how  was  it  to  be  accomplished,  and 
\\  ho  was  to  accomplish  it  ?  We  were  ten  or  twelve  millions  of 
people,  spread  over  almost  half  a  world.  We  were  more  than 
twenty  States,  some  stretching  along  the  same  seaboard,  some 
along  the  same  line  of  inland  frontier,  and  others  on  opposite 
banks  of  the  same  vast  rivers.  Two  considerations  at  once  pre- 
sented themselves  with  great  force,  in  looking  at  this  state  of 
things.  One  was,  that  that  great  branch  of  improvement  which 
consisted  in  furnishing  new  facilities  of  intercourse  necessarily 
ran  into  different  States  in  every  leading  instance,  and  would 
benefit  the  citizens  of  all  such  States.  No  one  State,  therefore, 
in  such  cases,  would  assume  the  whole  expense,  nor  was  the 
cooperation  of  several  States  to  be  expected.  Take  the  instance 
of  the  Delaware  breakwater.  It  will  cost  several  millions  of 
money.  Would  Pennsylvania  alone  ever  have  constructed  it? 
Certainly  never,  while  this  Union  lasts,  because  it  is  not  for  her 
sole  benefit.  Would  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  Delaware 
have  united  to  accomplish  it  at  their  joint  expense?  Certainly 
not,  for  the  same  reason.  It  could  not  be  done,  therefore,  but 
by  the  general  government.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  large 
inland  undertakings,  except  that,  in  them,  government,  instead 
of  bearing  the  whole  expense,  cooperates  with  others  who  bear  a 
part.  The  other  consideration  is,  that  the  United  States  have  the 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  297 

means.  They  enjoy  the  revenues  derived  from  commerce,  and 
the  States  have  no  abundant  and  easy  sources  of  public  in- 
come. The  custom-houses  fill  the  general  treasury,  while  the 
States  have  scanty  resources,  except  by  resort  to  heavy  direct 
taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought  it  necessary  to  settle,  at 
least  for  myself,  some  definite  notions  with  respect  to  the  powers 
of  the  government  in  regard  to  internal  affairs.  It  may  not  sa- 
vor too  much  of  self-commendation  to  remark,  that,  with  this 
object,  I  considered  the  Constitution,  its  judicial  construction,  its 
contemporaneous  exposition,  and  the  whole  history  of  the  legis- 
lation of  Congress  under  it;  and  I  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that 
government  had  power  to  accomplish  sundry  objects,  or  aid  in 
their  accomplishment,  which  are  now  commonly  spoken  of  as 
INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  That  conclusion,  Sir,  may  have  been 
right,  or  it  may  have  been  wrong.  I  am  not  about  to  argue  the 
grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say  only,  that  it  was  adopted  and 
acted  on  even  so  early  as  in  1816.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  I  made 
up  my  opinion,  and  determined  on  my  intended  course  of  polit- 
ical conduct,  on  these  subjects,  in  the  Fourteenth  Congress,  in 
1816.  And  now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  further  to  say,  that  I 
made  up  these  opinions,  and  entered  on  this  course  of  political 
conduct,  Teucro  dace*  Yes,  Sir,  I  pursued  in  all  this  a  South 
Carolina  track  on  the  doctrines  of  internal  improvement.  South 
Carolina,  as  she  was  then  represented  in  the  other  house,  set 
forth  in  1816  under  a  fresh  and  leading  breeze,  and  I  was  among 
the  followers.  But  if  my  leader  sees  new  lights  and  turns  a 
sharp  corner,  unless  I  see  new  lights  also,  I  keep  straight  on  in 
the  same  path.  I  repeat,  that  leading  gentlemen  from  South 
Carolina  were  first  and  foremost  in  behalf  of  the  doctrines  of 
internal  improvements,  when  those  doctrines  came  first  to  be 
considered  and  acted  upon  in  Congress.  The  debate  on  the 
bank  question,  on  the  tariff  of  1816,  and  on  the  direct  tax,  will 
show  who  was  who,  and  what  was  what,  at  that  time. 

The  tariff  of  1816,  (one  of  the  plain  cases  of  oppression  and 
usurpation,  from  which,  if  the  government  does  not  recede,  indi- 
vidual States  may  justly  secede  from  the  government,)  is,  Sir,  in 
truth,  a  South  Carolina  tariff,  supported  by  South  Carolina 

*  Mr.  Calhoun,  when  this  speech  was  made,  was  President  of  the  Senate,  and 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States. 


298  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

votes.  But  for  those  votes,  it  could  not  have  passed  in  the  form 
in  which  it  did  pass ;  whereas,  if  it  had  depended  on  Massachu- 
setts votes,  it  would  have  been  lost.  Does  not  the  honorable 
gentleman  well  know  all  this  ?  There  are  certainly  those  who 
do,  full  well,  know  it  all.  I  do  not  say  this  to  reproach  South 
Carolina.  I  only  state  the  fact ;  and  I  think  it  will  appear  to  be 
true,  that  among  the  earliest  and  boldest  advocates  of  the  tariff', 
as  a  measure  of  protection,  and  on  the  express  ground  of  protec- 
tion, were  leading  gentlemen  of  South  Carolina  in  Congress. 
I  did  not  then,  and  cannot  now,  understand  their  language  in 
any  other  sense.  While  this  tariff  of  1816  was  under  discus- 
sion in  the  House  of  Representatives,  an  honorable  gentleman 
from  Georgia,  now  of  this  -house,*  moved  to  reduce  the  proposed 
duty  on  cotton.  He  failed,  by  four  votes,  South  Carolina  giving 
three  votes  (enough  to  have  turned  the  scale)  against  his  motion. 
The  act,  Sir,  then  passed,  and  received  on  its  passage  the  sup- 
port of  a  majority  of  the  Representatives  of  South  Carolina 
present  and  voting.  This  act  is  the  first  in  the  order  of  those 
now  denounced  as  plain  usurpations.  We  see  it  daily  in  the 
list,  by  the  side  of  those  of  1824  and  1828,  as  a  case  of  manifest 
oppression,  justifying  disunion.  I  put  it  home  to  the  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina,  that  his  own  State  was  not  only 
"  art  and  part "  in  this  measure,  but  the  causa  causans.  With- 
out her  aid,  this  seminal  principle  of  mischief,  this  root  of  Upas, 
could  not  have  been  planted.  I  have  already  said,  and  it  is  true, 
that  this  act  proceeded  on  the  ground  of  protection.  It  inter- 
fered directly  with  existing  interests  of  great  value  and  amount. 
It  cut  up  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade  by  the  roots,  but  it  passed, 
nevertheless,  and  it  passed  on  the  principle  of  protecting  manu- 
factures, on  the  principle  against  free  trade,  on  the  principle 
opposed  to  that  which  lets  us  alone. f 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opinions  of  important  and  lead- 
ing gentlemen  from  South  Carolina,  on  the  subject  of  internal 
improvement,  in  1816.  I  went  out  of  Congress  the  next  year, 
and,  returning  again  in  1823,  thought  I  found  South  Carolina 
where  I  had  left  her.  I  really  supposed  that  all  things  remained 
as  they  were,  and  that  the  South  Carolina  doctrine  of  internal 
improvements  would  be  defended  by  the  same  eloquent  voices, 

*  Mr.  Forsyth.  f  See  Note  B,  at  the  end  of  the  speech. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLl  HON.  299 

and  the  same  strong  arms,  as  formerly.  In  the  lapse  of  these 
six  years,  it  is  true,  political  associations  had  assumed  a  new 
aspect  and  new  divisions.  A  strong  party  had  arisen  in  the 
South  hostile  to  the  doctrine  of  internal  improvements.  Anti- 
consolidation  was  the  flag  under  "which  this  party  fought ;  and 
its  supporters  inveighed  against  internal  improvements,  much 
after  the  manner  in  which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  now 
inveighed  against  them,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  system  of  con- 
solidation. Whether  this  party  arose  in  South  Carolina  itself, 
or  in  the  neighborhood,  is  more  than  I  know.  I  think  the  latter 
However  that  may  have  been,  there  were  those  found  in  South 
Carolina  ready  to  make  war  upon  it,  and  who  did  make  intrepid 
war  upon  it.  Names  being  regarded  as  things  in  such  contro- 
versies, they  bestowed  on  the  anti-improvement  gentlemen  the 
appellation  of  Radicals.  Yes,  Sir,  the  appellation  of  Radicals,  as 
a  term  of  distinction  applicable  and  applied  to  those  who  de- 
nied the  liberal  doctrines  of  internal  improvement,  originated, 
according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  somewhere  between 
North  Carolina  and  Georgia.  Well,  Sir,  these  mischievous  Rad- 
icals were  to  be  put  down,  and  the  strong  arm  of  South  Caro- 
lina was  stretched  out  to  put  them  down.  About  this  time 
I  returned  to  Congress.  The  battle  with  the  Radicals  had  been 
fought,  and  our  South  Carolina  champions  of  the  doctrines  of 
internal  improvement  had  nobly  maintained  their  ground,  and 
were  understood  to  have  achieved  a  victory.  We  looked  upon 
them  as  conquerors.  They  had  driven  back  the  enemy  with  dis- 
comfiture, a  thing,  by  the  way,  Sir,  which  is  not  always  per- 
formed when  it  is  promised.  A  gentleman  to  whom  I  have 
already  referred  in  this  debate  had  come  into  Congress,  during 
my  absence  from  it,  from  South  Carolina,  and  had  brought  with 
him  a  high  reputation  for  ability.  He  came  from  a  school  with 
which  we  had  been  acquainted,  et  noscltur  a  socils.  I  hold  in 
my  hand,  Sir,  a  printed  speech  of  this  distinguished  gentleman,* 
"  ON  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS,"  delivered  about  the  period  to 
which  I  now  refer,  and  printed  with  a  few  introductory  remarks 
upon  consolidation;  in  which,  Sir,  I  think  he  quite  consolidated 
the  arguments  of  his  opponents,  the  Radicals,  if  to  crush  be  to 
consolidate.  I  give  you  a  short  but  significant  quotation  from 

*  Mr.  McDuffie. 


300  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

these  /emarks.  He  is  speaking  of  a  pamphlet,  then  recently 
published,  entitled  "  Consolidation  " ;  and  having  alluded  to  the 
question  of  renewing  the  charter  of  the  former  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  he  says :  — 

"  Moreover,  in  the  early  history  of  parties,  and  when  Mr.  Crawford 
advocated  a  renewal  of  the  old  charter,  it  was  considered  a  Federal 
measure  ;  which  internal  improvement  never  teas,  as  this  author  errone- 
ously states.  This  latter  measure  originated  in  the  administration  of 
Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the  appropriation  for  the  Cumberland  Road  ;  and  was 
first  proposed,  as  a  system,  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  carried  through  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Republicans,  in- 
cluding almost  every  one  of  the  leading  men  who  carried  us  through  the 
late  war."  • 

So,  then,  internal  improvement  is  not  one  of  the  Federal  here- 
sies. One  paragraph  more,  Sir :  — 

"  The  author  in  question,  not  content  with  denouncing  as  Federalists, 
General  Jackson,  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  the  majority  of  the 
South  Carolina  delegation  in  Congress,  modestly  extends  the  denuncia- 
tion to  Mr.  Monroe  and  the  whole  Republican  party.  Here  are  his 
words  :  — '  During  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe  much  has  passed 
which  the  Republican  party  would  be  glad  to  approve  if  they  could !  ! 
But  the  principal  feature,  and  that  which  has  chiefly  elicited  these  ob- 
servations, is  the  renewal  of  the  SYSTEM  OF  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.' 
Now  this  measure  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  115  to  86  of  a  Republican 
Congress,  and  sanctioned  by  a  Republican  President.  Who,  then,  is  this 
author,  who  assumes  the  high  prerogative  of  denouncing,  in  the  name 
of  the  Republican  party,  the  Republican  administration  of  the  country  ? 
A  denunciation  including  within  its  sweep  Calhoun,  Lowndes,  and 
Cheves,  men  who  will  be  regarded  as  the  brightest  ornaments  of  South 
Carolina,  and  the  strongest  pillars  of  the  Republican  party,  as  long  as 
the  late  war  shall  be  remembered,  and  talents  and  patriotism  shall  be 
regarded  as  the  proper  objects  of  the  admiration  and  gratitude  of  a  free 
people  ! ! " 

Such  are  the  opinions,  Sir,  which  were  maintained  by  South 
Carolina  gentlemen,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the 
subject  of  internal  improvements,  when  I  took  my  seat  there 
as  a  member  from  Massachusetts  in  1823.  But  this  is  not  all. 
We  had  a  bill  before  -us,  and  passed  it  in  that  house,  entitled, 
u  An  Act  to  procure  the  necessary  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates 
upon  the  subject  of  roads  and  canals."  It  authorized  the  Pros- 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  301 

ident  to  cause  surveys  and  estimates  to  be  made  of  the  routes 
of  such  roads  and  canals  as  he  might  deem  of  national  impor- 
tance in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of  view,  or  for  the 
transportation  of  the  mail,  and  appropriated  thirty  thousand 
dollars  out  of  the  treasury  to  defray  the  expense.  This  act, 
though  preliminary  in  its  nature,  covered  the  whole  ground.  It 
took  for  granted  the  complete  power  of  internal  improvement, 
as  far  as  any  of  its  advocates  had  ever  contended  for  it.  Ha  ring 
passed  the  other  house,  the  bill  came  up  to  the  Senate,  and  was 
here  considered  and  debated  in  April,  1824.  The  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  at 
that  time.  While  the  bill  was  under  consideration  here,  a  mo- 
tion was  made  to  add  the  following  proviso :  — "  Provided, 
That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  affirm  or 
admit  a  power  in  Congress,  on  their  own  authority,  to  make 
roads  or  canals  within  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union."  The 
yeas  and  nays  were  taken  on  this  proviso,  and  the  honorable 
member  voted  in  the  negative  !  The  proviso  failed. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  add  this  proviso,  viz. :  —  "  Pro- 
vided, That  the  faith  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  pledged, 
that  no  money  shall  ever  be  expended  for  roads  or  canals,  ex- 
cept it  shall  be  among  the  several  States,  and  in  the  same  pro- 
portion as  direct  taxes  are  laid  and  assessed  by  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution."  The  honorable  member  voted  against 
this  proviso  also,  and  it  failed.  The  bill  was  then  put  on  its 
passage,  and  the  honorable  member  voted  for  it,  and  it  passed, 
and  became  a  law. 

Now,  it  strikes  me,  Sir,  that  there  is  no  maintaining  these  votes, 
but  upon  the  power  of  internal  improvement,  in  its  broadest 
sense.  In  truth,  these  bills  for  surveys  and  estimates  have  always 
been  considered  as  test  questions ;  they  show  who  is  for  and  who 
against  internal  improvement.  This  law  itself  went  the  whole 
length,  and  assumed  the  full  and  complete  power.  The  gentle- 
man's votes  sustained  that  power,  in  every  form  in  which  the 
various  propositions  to  amend  presented  it.  He  went  for  the 
entire  and  unrestrained  authority,  without  consulting  the  States, 
and  without  agreeing  to  any  proportionate  distribution.  And 
now  suffer  me  to  remind  you,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is  this  very 
same  power,  thus  sanctioned,  in  every  form,  by  the  gentleman's 
own  opinion,  which  is  so  plain  and  manifest  a  usurpation,  that 

VOL.  in.  26 


302  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

the  State  of  South  Carolina  is  supposed  to  be  justified  in  re- 
fusing submission  to  any  laws  carrying  the  power  into  effect. 
Truly,  Sir,  is  not  this  a  little  too  hard  ?  May  we  not  crave 
some  mercy,  under  favor  and  protection  of  the  gentleman's  own 
authority  ?  Admitting  that  a  road,  or  a  canal,  must  be  written 
down  flat  usurpation  as  was  ever  committed,  may  we  find  no 
mitigation  in  our  respect  for  his  place,  and  his  vote,  as  one  that 
knows  the  law  ? 

The  tariff,  which  South  Carolina  had  an  efficient  hand  in  es- 
tablishing, in  1816,  and  this  asserted  power  of  internal  improve- 
ment, advanced  by  her  in  the  same  year,  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
approved  and  sanctioned  by  her  Representatives  in  1824,  these 
two  measures  are  the  great  grounds  on  which  she  is  now 
thought  to  be  justified  in  breaking  up  the  Union,  if  she  sees  fit 
to  break  it  up ! 

I  may  now  safely  say,  I  think,  that  we  have  had  the  authority 
of  leading  and  distinguished  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina 
in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  internal  improvement.  I  repeat, 
that,  up  to  1824,  I  for  one  followed  South  Carolina ;  but  when 
that  star,  in  its  ascension,  veered  off  in  an  unexpected  direction, 
I  relied  on  its  light  no  longer. 

Here  the  Vice-President  said,  "  Does  the  chair  understand  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  to  say  that  the  person  now  occupying  the  chair 
of  the  Senate  has  changed  his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  internal  im- 
provements ?  " 

From  nothing  ever  said  to  me,  Sir,  have  I  had  reason  to  know 
of  any  change  in  the  opinions  of  the  person  filling  the  chair 
of  the  Senate.  If  such  change  has  taken  place,  I  regret  it.  I 
speak  generally  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina.  Individuals 
we  know  there  are,  who  hold  opinions  favorable  to  the  power. 
An  application  for  its  exercise,  in  behalf  of  a  public  work  in 
South  Carolina  itself,  is  now  pending,  I  believe,  in  the  other 
house,  presented  by  members  from  that  State. 

I  have  thus,  Sir,  perhaps  not  without  some  tediousness  of 
detail,  shown,  if  I  am  in  error  on  the  subject  of  internal  im- 
provement, how,  and  in  what  company,  I  fell  into  that  error.  If 
I  am  wrong,  it  is  apparent  who  misled  me. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honorable  member ;  and  I  have 
to  core  plain  of  an  entire  misapprehension  of  what  I  said  on  the 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     303 

subject  of  the  national  debt,  though  I  can  hardly  perceive  how 
any  one  could  misunderstand  me.  What  I  said  was,  not  that  I 
wished  to  put  off  the  payment  of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
that  I  had  always,  voted  for  every  measure  for  its  reduction,  as 
uniformly  as  the  gentleman  himself.  He  seems  to  claim  the  ex- 
clusive merit  of  a  disposition  to  reduce  the  public  charge.  I  do 
not  allow  it  to  him.  As  a  debt,  I  was,  I  am  for  paying  it,  be- 
cause it  is  a  charge  on  our  finances,  and  on  the  industry  of  the 
country.  But  I  observed,  that  I  thought  I  perceived  a  morbid 
fervor  on  that  subject,  an  excessive  anxiety  to  pay  off  the  debt, 
not  so  much  because  it  is  a  debt  simply,  as  because,  while  it 
lasts,  it  furnishes  one  objection  to  disunion.  It  is,  while  it  con- 
tinues, a  tie  of  common  interest.  I  did  not  impute  such  motives 
to  the  honorable  member  himself,  but  that  there  is  such  a  feeling 
in  existence  I  have  not  a  particle  of  doubt.  The  most  I  said 
was,  that  if  one  effect  of  the  debt  was  to  strengthen  our  Union, 
that  effect  itself  was  not  regretted  by  me,  however  much  others 
might  regret  it.  The  gentleman  has  not  seen  how  to  reply  to 
this,  otherwise  than  by  supposing  me  to  have  advanced  the  doc- 
trine that  a  national  debt  is  a  national  blessing.  Others,  1  must 
hope,  will  find  much  less  difficulty  in  understanding  me.  I  dis- 
tinctly and  pointedly  cautioned  the  honorable  member  not  to 
understand  me  as  expressing  an  opinion  favorable  to  the  contin- 
uance of  the  debt.  I  repeated  this  caution,  and  repeated  it  more 
than  once ;  but  it  was  thrown  away. 

On  yet  another  point,  I  was  still  more  unaccountably  misun- 
derstood. The  gentleman  had  harangued  against  "  consolida- 
tion." I  told  him,  in  reply,  that  there  was  one  kind  of  consoli- 
dation to  which  I  was  attached,  and  that  was  the  consolidation 
of  our  Union ;  that  this  was  precisely  that  consolidation  to 
which  I  feared  others  were  not  attached,  and  that  such  consoli- 
dation was  the  very  end  of  the  Constitution,  the  leading  object, 
as  they  had  informed  us  themselves,  which  its  framers  had  kept 
in  view.  I  turned  to  their  communication,*  and  read  their  very 
words,  "the  consolidation  of  the  Union,"  and  expressed  rny 
devotion  to  this  sort  of  consolidation.  I  said,  in  terms,  that  I 
wished  not  in  the  slightest  degree  to  augment  the  powers  of  this 
government;  that  my  object  was  to  preserve,  not  to  enlarge; 

*  The  letter  of  the  Federal  Convention  to  the  Congress  of  the  Confedei  ution, 
transmitting  the  plan  of  the  Constitution. 


304  SECOND  SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

and  that  by  consolidating  the  Union  I  understood  no  more  than 
the  strengthening  of  the  Union,  and  perpetuating  it.  Having 
oeen  thus  explicit,  having  thus  read  from  the  printed  book  the 
precise  words  which  I  adopted,  as  expressing  my  own  senti- 
ments, it  passes  comprehension  how  any  man  could  understand 
me  as  contending  for  an  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment, or  for  consolidation  in  that  odious  sense  in  which  it 
means  an  accumulation,  in  the  federal  government,  of  the  pow- 
ers properly  belonging  to  the  States. 

I  repeat,  Sir,  that,  in  adopting  the  sentiment  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution,  I  read  their  language  audibly,  and  word  for 
word ;  and  I  pointed  out  the  distinction,  just  as  fully  as  I  have 
now  done,  between  the  consolidation  of  the  Union  and  that 
other  obnoxious  consolidation  which  I  disclaimed.  And  yet  the 
honorable  member  misunderstood  me.  The  gentleman  had  said 
that  he  wished  for  no. fixed  revenue,  —  not  a  shilling.  If  by  a 
word  he  could  convert  the  Capitol  into  gold,  he  would  not  do  it. 
Why  all  this  fear  of  revenue  ?  Why,  Sir,  because,  as  the  gen- 
tleman told  us,  it  tends  to  consolidation.  Now  this  can  mean 
neither  more  nor  less  than  that  a  common  revenue  is  a  common 
interest,  and  that  all  common  interests  tend  to  preserve  the 
union  of  the  States.  I  confess  I  like  that  tendency;  if  the 
gentleman  dislikes  it,  he  is  right  in  deprecating  a  shilling  of 
fixed  revenue.  So  much,  Sir,  for  consolidation. 

As  well  as  I  recollect  the  course  of  his  remarks,  the  honorable 
gentleman  next  recurred  to  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  He  did  not 
doubt  the  word  must  be  of  unpleasant  sound  to  me,  and  proceed- 
ed, with  an  effort  neither  new  nor  attended  with  new  success,  to 
involve  me  and  my  votes  in  inconsistency  and  contradiction.  I 
am  happy  the  honorable  gentleman  has  furnished  me  an  oppor- 
tunity of  a  timely  remark  or  two  on  that  subject.  I  was  glad 
he  approached  it,  for  it  is  a  question  I  enter  upon  without  fear 
from  any  body.  The  strenuous  toil  of  the  gentleman  has  been 
to  raise  an  inconsistency  between  my  dissent  to  the  tariff  in 
1824,  and  my  vote  in  1828.  It  is  labor  lost.  He  pays  unde- 
served compliment  to  my  speech  in  1824 ;  but  this  is  to  raise 
me  high,  that  my  fall,  as  he  would  have  it,  in  1828,  may  be  more 
signal.  Sir,  there  was  no  fall.  Between  the  ground  I  stood  on 
in  1824  and  that  I  took  in  1828,  there  was  not  only  no  preci- 
pice, but  no  declivity.  It  was  a  change  of  position  to  meet  new 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     3Q5 

circumstances,  but  on  the  same  level.  A  plain  tale  explains  the 
whole  matter.  In  1816  I  had  not  acquiesced  in  the  tariff,  then 
supported  by  South  Carolina.  To  some  parts  of  it,  especially,  I 
felt  and  expressed  great  repugnance.  I  held  the  same  opinions 
in  1820,  at  the  meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  to  which  the  gentleman 
has  alluded.  I  said  then,  and  say  now,  that,  as  an  original 
question,  the  authority  of  Congress  to  exercise  the  revenue  pow- 
er, with  direct  reference  to  the  protection  of  manufactures,  is  a 
questionable  authority,  far  more  questionable,  in  my  judgment, 
than  the  power  of  internal  improvements.  I  must  confess,  Sir, 
that  in  one  respect  some  impression  has  been  made  on  my  opin- 
ions lately.  Mr.  Madison's  publication  has  put  the  power  in  a 
very  strong  light.  He  has  placed  it,  I  must  acknowledge,  upon 
grounds  of  construction  and  argument  which  seem  impregnable. 
But  even  if  the  power  were  doubtful,  on  the  face  of  the  Consti- 
tution itself,  it  had  been  assumed  and  asserted  in  the  first  reve- 
nue law  ever  passed  under  that  same  Constitution ;  and  on  this 
ground,  as  a  matter  settled  by  contemporaneous  practice,  I  had 
refrained  from  expressing  the  opinion  that  the  tariff  laws  tran- 
scended constitutional  limits,  as  the  gentleman  supposes.  What 
I  did  say  at  Faneuil  Hall,  as  far  as  I  now  remember,  was,  that 
this  was  originally  matter  of  doubtful  construction.  The  gen- 
tleman himself,  I  suppose,  thinks  there  is  no  doubt  about  it,  and 
that  the  laws  are  plainly  against  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Madi- 
son's letters,  already  referred  to,  contain,  in  my  judgment,  by  far 
the  most  able  exposition  extant  of  this  part  of  the  Constitution. 
He  has  satisfied  me,  so  far  as  the  practice  of  the  government 
had  left  it  an  open  question. 

With  a  great  majority  of  the  Representatives  of  Massachu- 
setts, I  voted  against  the  tariff  of  1824.  My  reasons  were  then 
given,  and  I  will  not  now  repeat  them.  But,  notwithstanding 
our  dissent,  the  great  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
and  Kentucky  went  for  the  bill,  in  almost  unbroken  column, 
and  it  passed.  Congress  and  the  President  sanctioned  it,  and  it 
became  the  law  of  the  land.  What,  then,  were  we  to  do  ?  Our 
only  option  was,  either  to  fall  in  with  this  settled  course  of  pub- 
lic policy,  and  accommodate  ourselves  to  it  as  well  as  we  could, 
or  to  embrace  the  South  Carolina  doctrine,  and  talk  of  nullify- 
ing the  statute  by  State  interference. 

This  last  alternative  did  not  suit  our  principles,  and  of  course 
26* 


306     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

we  adopted  the  former.  In  1827,  the  subject  came  again  before 
Congress,  on  a  proposition  to  afford  some  relief  to  the  branch  of 
wool  and  woollens.  We  looked  upon  the  system  of  protection 
as  being  fixed  and  settled.  The  law  of  1824  remained.  It  had 
gone  into  full  operation,  and,  in  regard  to  some  objects  intended 
by  it,  perhaps  most  of  them,  had  produced  all  its  expected 
effects.  No  man  proposed  to  repeal  it ;  no  man  attempted  to 
renew  the  general  contest  on  its  principle.  But,  owing  to  sub- 
sequent and  unforeseen  occurrences,  the  benefit  intended  by  it 
to  wool  and  woollen  fabrics  had  not  been  realized.  Events  not 
known  here  when  the  law  passed  had  taken  place,  which  de- 
feated its  object  in  that  particular  respect.  A  measure  was 
accordingly  brought  forward  to  meet  this  precise  deficiency,  to 
remedy  this  particular  defect.  It  was  limited  to  wool  and  wool- 
lens. Was  ever  any  thing  more  reasonable  ?  If  the  policy  of 
the  tariff  laws  had  become  established  in  principle,  as  the  per- 
manent policy  of  the  government,  should  they  not  be  revised 
and  amended,  and  made  equal,  like  other  laws,  as  exigencies 
should  arise,  or  justice  require  ?  Because  we  had  doubted  about 
adopting  the  system,  were  we  to  refuse  to  cure  its  manifest 
defects,  after  it  had  been  adopted,  and  when  no  one  attempted 
its  repeal  ?  And  this,  Sir,  is  the  inconsistency  so  much  bruited. 
I  had  voted  against  the  tariff  of  1824,  but  it  passed ;  and  in 
1827  and  1828,  I  voted  to  amend  it,  in  a  point  essential  to  the 
interest  of  rny  constituents.  Where  is  the  inconsistency? 
Could  I  do  otherwise  ?  Sir,  does  political  consistency  consist 
in  always  giving  negative  votes?  Does  it  require  of  a  pub- 
lic man  to  refuse  to  concur  in  amending  laws,  because  they 
passed  against  his  consent?  Having  voted  against  the  tariff 
originally,  does  consistency  demand  that  I  should  do  all  in 
my  power  to  maintain  an  unequal  tariff,  burdensome  to  my 
own  constituents  in  many  respects,  favorable  in  none?  To 
consistency  of  that  sort,  I  lay  no  claim.  And  there  is  an- 
other sort  to  which  I  lay  as  little,  and  that  is,  a  kind  of  con- 
sistency by  which  persons  feel  themselves  as  much  bound  to 
oppose  a  proposition  after  it  has  become  a  law  of  the  land  as 
before. 

The  bill  of  1827,  limited,  as  I  have  said,  to  the  single  object 
in  which  the  tariff  of  1824  had  manifestly  failed  in  its  effect, 
passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  was  lost  here.  We 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.      307 

had  then  the  act  of  1828.  I  need  not  recur  to  the  history  of  a 
measure  so  recent.  Its  enemies  spiced  it  with  whatsoever  they 
thought  would  render  it  distasteful ;  its  friends  took  it,  drugged 
as  it  was.  Vast  amounts  of  property,  many  millions,  had  been 
invested  in  manufactures,  under  the  inducements  of  the  act  of 
1824.  Events  called  loudly,  as  I  thought,  for  further  regulation 
to  secure  the  degree  of  protection  intended  by  that  act.  I  was 
disposed  to  vote  for  such  regulation,  and  desired  nothing  more; 
but  certainly  was  not  to  be  bantered  out  of  my  purpose  by  a 
threatened  augmentation  of  duty  on  molasses,  put  into  the  bill 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  making  it  obnoxious.  The  vote  may 
have  been  right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise ;  but  it  is  little  less 
than  absurd  to  allege  against  it  an  inconsistency  with  opposition 
to  the  former  law. 

Sir,  as  to  the  general  subject  of  the  tariff,  I  have  little  now  to 
say.  Another  opportunity  may  be  presented.  I  remarked  the 
other  day,  that  this  policy  did  not  begin  with  us  in  New  Eng- 
land ;  and  yet,  Sir,  New  England  is  charged  with  vehemence 
as  being  favorable,  or  charged  with  equal  vehemence  as  being 
unfavorable,  to  the  tariff  policy,  just  as  best  suits  the  time,  place, 
and  occasion  for  making  some  charge  against  her.  The  credu- 
lity of  the  public  has  been  put  to  its  extreme  capacity  of  false 
impression  relative  to  her  conduct  in  this  particular.  Through 
all  the  South,  during  the  late  contest,  it  was  New  England  pol- 
icy and  a  New  England  administration  that  were  afflicting  the 
country  with  a  tariff  beyond  all  endurance;  while  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Alleghanies  even  the  act  of  1828  itself,  the  very  sub- 
limated essence  of  oppression,  according  to  Southern  opinions, 
was  pronounced  to  be  one  of  those  blessings  for  which  the 
West  was  indebted  to  the  "  generous  South." 

With  large  investments  in  manufacturing  establishments,  and 
many  and  various  interests  connected  with  and  dependent  on 
them,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  New  England,  any  more 
than  other  portions  of  the  country,  will  now  consent  to  any 
measure  destructive  or  highly  dangerous.  The  duty  of  the  gov- 
ernment, at  the  present  moment,  would  seem  to  be  to  preserve, 
not  to  destroy;  to  maintain  the  position  which  it  has  assumed; 
and,  for  one,  I  shall  feel  it  an  indispensable  obligation  to  hold 
it  steady,  as  far  as  in  my  power,  to  that  degree  of  protection 
which  it  has  undertaken  to  bestow.  No  more  of  the  tariff 


308     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION 

.  » 

Professing  to  be  provoked  by  what  he  chose  to  consider  a 
charge  made  by  me  against  South  Carolina,  the  honorable  mem- 
ber, Mr.  President,  has  taken  up  a  new  crusade  against  New 
England.  Leaving  altogether  the  subject  of  the  public  lands,  in 
which  his  success,  perhaps,  had  been  neither  distinguished  nor 
satisfactory,  and  letting  go,  also,  of  the  topic  of  the  tariff,  he 
sallied  forth  in  a  general  assault  on  the  opinions,  politics,  and 
parties  of  New  England,  as  they  have  been  exhibited  in  the  last 
thirty  years.  This  is  natural.  The  "  narrow  policy  "  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  had  proved  a  legal  settlement  in  South  Carolina,  and 
was  not  to  be  removed.  The  "  accursed  policy  "  of  the  tariff, 
also,  had  established  the  fact  of  its  birth  and  parentage  in  the 
same  State.  No  wonder,  therefore,  the  gentleman  wished  to 
carry  the  war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into  the  enemy's  country. 
Prudently  willing  to  quit  these  subjects,  he  was,  doubtless,  de- 
sirous of  fastening  on  others,  which  could  not  be  transferred 
south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  The  politics  of  New  England 
became  his  theme ;  and  it  was  in  this  part  of  his  speech,  I  think, 
that  he  menaced  me  with  such  sore  discomfiture.  Discomfit- 
ure !  Why,  Sir,  when  he  attacks  any  thing  which  I  maintain, 
and  overthrows  it,  when  he  turns  the  right  or  left  of  any  posi- 
tion which  I  take  up,  when  he  drives  me  from  any  ground  I 
choose  to  occupy,  he  may  then  talk  of  discomfiture,  but  not  till 
that  distant  day.  What  has  he  done  ?  Has  he  maintained  his 
own  charges  ?  Has  he  proved  what  he  alleged  ?  Has  he  sus- 
tained himself  in  his  attack  on  the  government,  and  on  the  his- 
tory of  the  North,  in  the  matter  of  the  public  lands  ?  Has  he 
disproved  a  fact,  refuted  a  proposition,  weakened  an  argument, 
maintained  by  me  ?  Has  he  come  within  beat  of  drum  of  any 
position  of  mine?  O,  no;  but  he  has  "carried  the  war  into 
the  enemy's  country"  !  Carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  coun- 
try !  Yes,  Sir,  and  what  sort  of  a  war  has  he  made  of  it  ? 
Why,  Sir,  he  has  stretched  a  drag-net  over  the  whole  surface  of 
perished  pamphlets,  indiscreet  sermons,  frothy  paragraphs,  and 
fuming  popular  addresses ;  over  whatever  the  pulpit  in  its  mo- 
ments of  alarm,  the  press  in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  extrav- 
agance, have  severally  thrown  off  in  times  of  general  excitement 
and  violence.  He  has  thus  swept  together  a  mass  of  such  things 
as,  but  that  they  are  now  old  and  cold,  the  public  health  would 
have  required  him  rather  to  leave  in  their  state  of  dispersion. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.      309 

For  a  good  long  hour  or  two,  we  had  the  unbroken  pleasure  of 
listening  to  the  honorable  member,  while  he  recited  with  his 
usual  grace  and  spirit,  and  with  evident  high  gusto,  speeches, 
pamphlets,  addresses,  and  all  the  et  cceleras  of  the  political  press, 
such  as  warm  heads  produce  in  warm  times;  and  .such  as  it 
would  be  "discomfiture"  indeed  for  any  one,  whose  tasle  did 
not  delight  in  that  sort  of  reading,  to  be  obliged  to  peruse.  This 
is  his  war.  This  it  is  to  carry  war  into  the  enemy's  country.  It 
is  in  an  invasion  of  this  sort,  that  he  flatters  himself  with  the  ex- 
pectation of  gaining  laurels  fit  to  adorn  a  Senator's  brow ! 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not,  it  will  not,  I  trust,  be  expected  that 
I  should,  either  now  or  at  any  time,  separate  this  farrago  into 
parts,  and  answer  and  examine  its  components.  I  shall  barely 
bestow  upon  it  all  a  general  remark  or  two.  In  the  run  of  forty 
years,  Sir,  under  this  Constitution,  we  have  experienced  sundry 
successive  violent  party  contests.  Party  arose,  indeed,  with  the 
Constitution  itself,  and,  in  some  form  or  other,  has  attended  it 
through  the  greater  part  of  its  history.  Whether  any  other  con- 
stitution than  the  old  Articles  of  Confederation  was  desirable, 
was  itself  a  question  on  which  parties  divided ;  if  a  new  consti- 
tution were  framed,  what  powers  should  be  given  to  it  was 
another  question ;  and  when  it  had  been  formed,  what  was,  in 
fact,  the  just  extent  of  the  powers  actually  conferred  was  a 
third.  Parties,  as  we  know,  existed  under  the  first  administra- 
tion, as  distinctly  marked  as  those  wh'.ch  have  manifested  them- 
selves at  any  subsequent  period.  The  contest  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  political  change  in  1801,  and  that,  again,  which 
existed  at  the  commencement  of  the  late  war,  are  other  in- 
stances of  party  excitement,  of  something  more  than  usual 
strength  and  intensity.  In  all  these  conflicts  there  was,  no 
doubt,  much  of  violence  on  both  and  all  sides.  It  would  be 
impossible,  if  one  had  a  fancy  for  such  employment,  to  adjust 
the  relative  quantum  of  violence  between  these  contending  par- 
ties. There  was  enough  in  each,  as  must  always  be  expected 
in  popular  governments.  With  a  great  deal  of  popular  and 
decorous  discussion,  there  was  mingled  a  great  deal,  also,  of 
declamation,  virulence,  crimination,  and  abuse.  In  regard  to 
any  party,  probably,  at  one  of  the  leading  epochs  in  the  history 
of  parties,  enough  may  be  found  to  make  out  another  inflamed 
exhibition,  not  unlike  that  with  which  the  honorable  member 


310     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

has  edified  us.  For  myself,  Sir,  I  shall  not  rake  among  the  rulv. 
bish  of  bygone  times,  to  see  what  I  can  find,  or  whether  I  cannot 
find  something  by  which  I  can  fix  a  blot  on  the  escutcheon  of 
any  State,  any  party,  or  any  part  of  the  country.  General 
Washington's  administration  was  steadily  and  zealously  main- 
tained, as  we  all  know,  by  New  England.  It  was  violently 
opposed  elsewhere.  We  know  in  what  quarter  he  had  the  most 
earnest,  constant,  and  persevering  support,  in  all  his  great  and 
leading  measures.  We  know  where  his  private  and  personal 
character  was  held  in  the  highest  degree  of  attachment  and 
veneration ;  and  we  know,  too,  where  his  measures  were  op- 
posed, his  services  slighted,  and  his  character  vilified.  We  know, 
or  we  might  know,  if  we  turned  to  the  journals,  who  expressed 
respect,  gratitude,  and  regret,  when  he  retired  from  the  chief 
magistracy,  and  who  refused  to  express  either  respect,  gratitude, 
or  regret.  I  shall  not  open  those  journals.  Publications  more 
abusive  or  scurrilous  never  saw  the  light,  than  were  sent  forth 
against  Washington,  and  all  his  leading  measures,  from  presses 
south  of  New  England.  But  I  shall  not  look  them  up.  I  em- 
ploy no  scavengers,  no  one  is  in  attendance  on  me,  furnishing 
such  means  of  retaliation ;  and  if  there  were,  with  an  ass's 
load  of  them,  with  a  bulk  as  huge  as  that  which  the  gentleman 
himself  has  produced,  I  would  not  touch  one  of  them.  I  see 
enough  of  the  violence  of  our  own  times,  to  be  no  way  anxious 
to  rescue  from  forgetfulness  the  extravagances  of  times  past. 

Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present  purpose  ?  It  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  public  lands,  in  regard  to  which  the  attack 
was  begun;  and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  those  sentiments  and 
opinions  which,  I  have  thought,  tend  to  disunion,  and  all  of 
which  the  honorable  member  seems  to  have  adopted  himself, 
and  undertaken  to  defend.  New  England  has,  at  times,  so 
argues  the  gentleman,  held  opinions  as  dangerous  as  those 
which  he  now  holds.  Suppose  this  were  so;  why  should  he 
therefore  abuse  New  England?  If  he  finds  himself  counte- 
nanced by  acts  of  hers,  how  is  it  that,  while  he  relies  on  these 
acts,  he  covers,  or  seeks  to  cover,  their  authors  with  reproach  ? 
But,  Sir,  if,  in  the  course  of  forty  years,  there  have  been  undue 
effervescences  of  party  in  New  England,  has  the  same  thing 
happened  nowhere  else?  Party  animosity  and  party  outrage, 
not  in  New  England,  but  elsewhere,  denounced  President  Wash- 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     3H 

ington,  not  only  as  a  Federalist,  but  as  a  Tory,  a  British  agent,  a 
man  who  in  his  high  office  sanctioned  corruption.  But  does  the 
honorable  member  suppose,  if  I  had  a  tender  here  who  should 
put  such  an  effusion  of  wickedness-  and  folly  into  my  hand, 
that  I  would  stand  up  and  read  it  against  the  South  ?  Parties 
ran  into  great  heats  again  in  1799  and  1800.  What  was  said, 
Sir,  or  rather  what  was  not  said,  in  those  years,  against  John 
Adams,  one  of  the  committee  that  drafted  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  its  admitted  ablest  defender  on  the  floor  of 
Congress?  If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  increase  his  stores  of 
party  abuse  and  frothy  violence,  if  he  has  a  determined  procliv- 
ity to  such  pursuits,  there  are  treasures  of  that  sort  south  of  the 
Potomac,  much  to  his  taste,  yet  untouched.  I  shall  not  touch 
them. 

The  parties  which  divided  the  country  at  the  commencement 
of  the  late  war  were  violent.  But  then  there  was  violence  on 
both  sides,  and  violence  in  every  State.  Minorities  and  majori- 
ties were  equally  violent.  There  was  no  more  violence  against 
the  war  in  New  England,  than  in  other  States ;  nor  any  more 
appearance  of  violence,  except  that,  owing  to  a  dense  population, 
greater  facility  of  assembling,  and  more  presses,  there  may  have 
been  more  in  quantity  spoken  and  printed  there  than  in  some 
other  places.  In  the  article  of  sermons,  too,  New  England  is 
somewhat  more  abundant  than  South  Carolina;  and  for  that 
reason  the  chance  of  finding  here  and  there  an  exceptionable 
one  may  be  greater.  I  hope,  too,  there  are  more  good  ones. 
Opposition  may  have  been  more  formidable  in  New  England, 
as  it  embraced  a  larger  portion  of  the  whole  population ;  but  it 
was  no  more  unrestrained  in  principle,  or  violent  in  manner. 
The  minorities  dealt  quite  as  harshly  with  their  own  State  gov- 
ernments as  the  majorities  dealt  with  the  administration  here. 
There  were  presses  on  both  sides,  popular  meetings  on  both 
sides,  ay,  and  pulpits  on  both  sides  also.  The  gentleman's  pur- 
veyors have  only  catered  for  him  among  the  productions  of  one 
side.  I  certainly  shall  not  supply  the  deficiency  by  furnishing 
samples  of  the  other.  I  leave  to  him,  and  to  them,  the  whole 
concern. 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  if,  in  any  part  of  this  their 
grateful  occupation,  if,  in  all  then-  researches,  they  find  any 
thing  in  the  history  of  Massachusetts,  or  New  England,  or  ir- 


312  SECOND   SPEECH  ON    FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

the  proceedings  of  any  legislative  or  other  public  body,  disloyal  to 
the  Union,  speaking  slightingly  of  its  value,  proposing  to  break 
it  up,  or  recommending  non-intercourse  with  neighboring  States, 
on  account  of  difference  of  political  opinion,  then,  Sir,  I  give 
them  all  up  to  the  honorable  gentleman's  unrestrained  rebuke ; 
expecting,  however,  that  he  will  extend  his  buffetings  in  like 
manner  to  all  similar  proceedings,  wherever  else  found. 

The  gentleman,  Sir,  has  spoken  at  large  of  former  parties, 
now  no  longer  in  being,  by  their  received  appellations,  and  has 
undertaken  to  instruct  us,  not  only  in  the  knowledge  of  their 
principles,  but  of  their  respective  pedigrees  also.  He  has  as- 
cended to  their  origin,  and  run  out  their  genealogies.  With  most 
exemplary  modesty,  he  speaks  of  the  party  to  which  he  professes 
to  have  himself  belonged,  as  the  true  Pure,  the  only  honest,  pa- 
triotic party,  derived  by  regular  descent,  from  father  to  son,  from 
the  time  of  the  virtuous  Romans !  Spreading  before  us  the  fam- 
ily tree  of  political  parties,  he  takes  especial  care  to  show  him- 
self snugly  perched  on  a  popular  bough  !  He  is  wakeful  to  the 
expediency  of  adopting  such  rules  of  descent  as  shall  bring  him 
in,  to  the  exclusion  of  others,  as  an  heir  to  the  inheritance  of  all 
public  virtue  and  all  true  political  principle.  His  party  and  his 
opinions  are  sure  to  be  orthodox ;  heterodoxy  is  confined  to  his 
opponents.  He  spoke,  Sir,  of  the  Federalists,  and  I  thought  I 
saw  some  eyes  begin  to  open  and  stare  a  little,  when  he  ven- 
tured on  that  ground.  I  expected  he  would  draw  his  sketches 
rather  lightly,  when  he  looked  on  the  circle  round  him,  and  espe- 
cially if  he  should  cast  his  thoughts  to  the  high  places  out  of  the 
Senate.  Nevertheless,  he  went  back  to  Rome,  ad  annum  urbis 
conditce,  and  found  the  fathers  of  the  Federalists  in  the  primeval 
aristocrats  of  that  renowned  city !  He  traced  the  flow  of  Fed- 
eral blood  down  through  successive  ages  and  centuries,  till  he 
brought  it  into  the  veins  of  the  American  Tories,  of  whom,  by 
the  way,  there  were  twenty  in  the  Carolinas  for  one  in  Massachu- 
setts. From  the  Tories  he  followed  it  to  the  Federalists ;  and, 
as  the  Federal  party  was  broken  up,  and  there  was  no  possibility 
of  transmitting  it  further  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  he  seems  to 
have  discovered  that  it  has  gone  off  collaterally,  though  against 
all  the  canons  of  descent,  into  the  Ultras  of  France,  and  finally 
become  extinguished,  like  exploded  gas,  among  the  adherents  of 
Don  Miguel !  This,  Sir,  is  an  abstract  of  the  gentleman's  his- 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  313 

tory  of  Federalism.  I  am  not  about  to  controvert  it.  It  is  not, 
at  present,  worth  the  pains  of  refutation ;  because,  Sir,  if  at  this 
day  any  one  feels  the  sin  of  Federalism  lying  heavily  on  his  con- 
science, he  can  easily  procure  remission.  He  may  even  obtain 
an  indulgence,  if  he  be  desirous  of  repeating  the  same  transgres- 
sion. "  It  is  an  affair  of  no  difficulty  to  get  into  this  same  right 
line  of  patriotic  descent.  A  man  no\v-a-days  is  at  liberty  to 
choose  his  political  parentage.  He  may  elect  his  own  father. 
Federalist  or  not,  he  may,  if  he  choose,  claim  to  belong  to  the 
favored  stock,  and  his  claim  will  be  allowed.  He  may  carry 
back  his  pretensions  just  as  far  as  the  honorable  gentleman  him- 
self; nay,  he  may  make  himself  out  the  honorable  gentleman's 
cousin,  and  prove,  satisfactorily,  that  he  is  descended  from  the 
same  political  great-grandfather.  All  this  is  allowable.  We  all 
know  a  process,  Sir,  by  which  the  whole  Essex  Junto  could,  in 
one  hour,  be  all  washed  white  from  their  ancient  Federalism, 
and  come  out,  every  one  of  them,  original  Democrats,  dyed  in 
the  wool!  Some  of  them  have  actually  undergone  the  opera- 
tion, and  they  say  it  is  quite  easy.  The  only  inconvenience  it 
occasions,  as  they  tell  us,  is  a  slight  tendency  of  the  blood  to  the 
face,  a  soft  suffusion,  which,  however,  is  very  transient,  since 
nothing  is  said  by  those  whom  they  join  calculated  to  deepen 
the  red  on  the  cheek,  but  a  prudent  silence  is  observed  in  re- 
gard to  all  the  past.  Indeed,  Sir,  some  smiles  of  approbation 
have  been  bestowed,  and  some  crumbs  of  comfort  have  fallen, 
not  a  thousand  miles  from  the  door  of  the  Hartford  Convention 
itself.  And  if  the  author  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  possessed 
the  other  requisite  qualifications,  there  is  no  knowing,  notwith- 
standing his  Federalism,  to  what  heights  of  favor  he  might  not 
yet  attain. 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare,  such  as  it  is,  into  New 
England,  the  honorable  gentleman  all  along  professes  to  be  acting 
on  the  defensive.  He  chooses  to  consider  me  as  having  assailed 
South  Carolina,  and  insists  that  he  comes  forth  only  as  her  cham- 
pion, and  in  her  defence.  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  that  I  made  any 
attack  whatever  on  South  Carolina.  Nothing  b'ke  it.  The  hon- 
orable member,  in  his  first  speech,  expressed  opinions,  in  regard 
to  revenue  and  some  other  topics,  which  I  heard  both  with  pain 
and  with  surprise.  I  told  the  gentleman  I  was  aware  that  such 
sentiments  were  entertained  out  of  the  government,  but  had 

VOL.  in.  27 


314  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

not  expected  to  find  them  advanced  in  it;  that  I  knew  there  were 
persons  in  the  South  who  speak  of  our  Union  with  indifference 
or  doubt,  taking  pains  to  magnify  its  evils,  and  to  say  nothing 
of  its  benefits ;  that  the  honorable  member  himself,  I  was  sure, 
could  never  be  one  of  these ;  and  I  regretted  the  expression  of 
such  opinions  as  he  had  avowed,  because  I  thought  their  obvi- 
ous tendency  was  to  encourage  feelings  of  disrespect  to  the 
Union,  and  to  impair  its  strength..  This,  Sir,  is  the  sum  and 
substance  of  all  I  said  on  the  subject.  And  this  constitutes  the 
attack  which  called  on  the  chivalry  of  the  gentleman,  in  his  own 
opinion,  to  harry  us  with  such  a  foray  among  the  party  pam- 
phlets and  party  proceedings  of  Massachusetts!  If  he  means 
that  I  spoke  with  dissatisfaction  or  disrespect  of  the  ebullitions 
of  individuals  in  South  Carolina,  it  is  true.  But  if  he  means 
that  I  assailed  the  character  of  the  State,  her  honor,  or  patri- 
otism, that  I  reflected  on  her  history  or  her  conduct,  he  has 
not  the  slightest  ground  for  any  such  assumption.  I  did  not 
even  refer,  I  'think,  in  my  observations,  to  any  collection  of  in- 
dividuals. I  said  nothing  of  the  recent  conventions.  I  spoke 
In  the  most  guarded  and  careful  manner,  and  only  expressed  my 
regret  for  the  publication  of  opinions,  which  I  presumed  the 
honorable  member  disapproved  as  much  as  myself.  In  this,  it 
seems,  I  was  mistaken.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  gentleman 
has  disclaimed  any  sentiment,  or  any  opinion,  of  a  supposed 
anti-union  tendency,  which  on  all  or  any  of  the  recent  occasions 
has  been  expressed.  The  whole  drift  of  his  speech  has  been 
rather  to  prove,  that,  in  divers  times  and  manners,  sentiments 
equally  liable  to  my  objection  have  been  avowed  in  New  Eng- 
land. And  one  would  suppose  that  his  object,  in  this  reference 
to  Massachusetts,  was  to  find  a  precedent  to  justify  proceedings 
in  the  South,  were  it  not  for  the  reproach  and  contumely  with 
which  he  labors,  all  along,  to  load  these  his  own  chosen  prece- 
dents. By  way  of  defending  South  Carolina  from  what  he  chooses 
to  think  an  attack  on  her,  he  first  quotes  the  example  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  then  denounces  that  example  in  good  set  terms. 
This  twofold  purpose,  not  very  consistent,  one  would  think,  with 
itself,  was  exhibited  more  than  once  in  the  course  of  his  speech. 
He  referred,  for  instance,  to  the  Hartford  Convention.  Did  he 
do  this  for  authority,  or  for  a  topic  of  reproach?  Apparently  for 
both,  for  he  told  us  that  he  should  find  no  fault  with  the  mere 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     3L5 

fact  of  holding  such  a  convention,  and  considering  and  discuss- 
ing such  questions  as  he  supposes  were  then  and  there  dis- 
cussed ;  but  what  rendered  it  obnoxious  was  its  being  held  at  the 
time,  and  under  the  circumstances  of  the  country  then  existing. 
We  were  in  a  war,  he  said,  and  the  country  needed  all  our  aid; 
the  hand  of  government  required  to  be  strengthened,  not  weak- 
ened; and  patriotism  should  have  postponed  such  proceedings  to 
another  day.  The  thing  itself,  then,  is  a  precedent;  the  time 
and  manner  of  it  only,  a  subject  of  censure. 

Now,  Sir,  I  go  much  further,  on  this  point,  than  the  honora- 
ble member.  Supposing,  as  the  gentleman  seems  to  do,  that  the 
Hartford  Convention  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as  break- 
ing up  the  Union,  because  they  thought  unconstitutional  laws 
had  been  passed,  or  to  consult  on  that  subject,  or  to  calculate 
the  value  of  the  Union ;  supposing  this  to  be  their  purpose,  or 
any  part  of  it,  then  I  say  the  meeting  itself  was  disloyal,  and 
was  obnoxious  to  censure,  whether  held  in  time  of  peace  or  time 
of  war,  or  under  whatever  circumstances.  The  material  ques- 
tion is  the  object.  Is  dissolution  the  object  ?  If  it  be,  external 
circumstances  may  make  it  a  more  or  less  aggravated  case,  but 
cannot  affect  the  principle.  I  do  not  hold,  therefore,  Sir,  that 
the  Hartford  Convention  was  pardonable,  even  to  the  extent  of 
the  gentleman's  admission,  if  its  objects  were  really  such  as  have 
been  imputed  to  it.  Sir,  there  never  was  a  time,  under  any  de- 
gree of  excitement,  in  which  the  Hartford  Convention,  or  any  oth- 
er convention,  could  have  maintained  itself  one  moment  in  New 
England,  if  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as  the  gentleman 
says  would  have  been  an  allowable  purpose.  To  hold  conven- 
tions to  decide  constitutional  law !  To  try  the  binding  validity 
of  statutes  by  votes  in  a  convention !  Sir,  the  Hartford  Con- 
vention, I  presume,  would  not  desire  that  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman should  be  their  defender  or  advocate,  if  he  puts  their 
case  upon  such  untenable  and  extravagant  grounds. 

Then,  Sir,  the  gentleman  has  no  fault  to  find  with  these  re- 
cently promulgated  South  Carolina  opinions.  And  certainly 
he  need  have  none ;  for  his  own  sentiments,  as  now  advanced, 
and  advanced  on  reflection,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  compre- 
hend them,  go  the  full  length  of  all  these  opinions.  I  propose, 
Sir,  to  say  something  on  these,  and  to  consider  how  far  they  are 
just  and  constitutional.  Before  doing  that,  however,  let  me  ob- 


316     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

serve  that  the  eulogium  pronounced  by  the  honorable  gentleman 
on  the  character  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  for  her  Revolu- 
tionary and  other  merits,  meets  my  hearty  concurrence.  I  shall 
not  acknowledge  that  the  honorable  member  goes  before  me  in 
regard  for  whatever  of  distinguished  talent,  or  distinguished  char- 
acter, South  Carolina  has  produced.  I  claim  part  of  the  honor, 
I  partake  in  the  pride,  of  her  great  names.  I  claim  them  for 
countrymen,  one  and  all,  the  Laurenses,  the  Rutledges,  the 
Pinckncys,  the  Sumpters,  the  Marions,  Americans  all,  whose 
fame  is  no  more  to  be  hemmed  in  by  State  lines,  than  their 
talents  and  patriotism  were  capable  of  being  circumscribed  with- 
in the  same  narrow  limits.  In  their  day  and  generation,  they 
served  and  honored  the  country,  and  the  whole  country ;  and 
their  renown  is  of  the  treasures  of  the  whole  country.  Him  whose 
honored  name  the  gentleman  himself  bears,  —  does  he  esteem 
me  less  capable  of  gratitude  for  his  patriotism,  or  sympathy  for 
his  sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes  had  first  opened  upon  the  light 
of  Massachusetts,  instead  of  South  Carolina  ?  Sir,  does  he  sup- 
pose it  in  his  power  to  exhibit  a  Carolina  name  so  bright,  as  to 
produce  envy  in  my  bosom  ?  No,  Sir,  increased  gratification 
and  delight,  rather.  I  thank  God,  that,  if  I  am  gifted  with  little 
of  the  spirit  which  is  able  to  raise  mortals  to  the  skies,  I  have 
yet  none,  as  I  trust,  of  that  other  spirit,  which  would  drag  angels 
down.  When  I  shall  be  found,  Sir,  in  my  place  here  in  the  Sen- 
ate, or  elsewhere,  to  sneer  at  public  merit,  because  it  happens 
to  spring  up  beyond  the  little  limits  of  my  own  State  or  neigh- 
borhood ;  when  I  refuse,  for  any  such  cause,  or  for  any  cause, 
the  homage  due  to  American  talent,  to  elevated  patriotism,  to 
sincere  devotion  to  liberty  and  the  country ;  or,  if  I  see  an  un- 
common endowment  of  Heaven,  if  I  see  extraordinary  capacity 
and  virtue,  in  any  son  of  the  South,  and  if,  moved  by  local  prej- 
udice or  gangrened  by  State  jealousy,  I  get  up  here  to  abate 
the  tithe  of  a  hair  from  his  just  character  and  just  fame,  may 
my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth ! 

Sir,  let  me  recur  to  pleasing  recollections ;  let  me  indulge  in 
refreshing  remembrance  of  the  past;  let  me  remind  you  that,  in 
early  times,  no  States  cherished  greater  harmony,  both  of  princi- 
ple and  feeling,  than  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina.  Would 
to  God  that  harmony  might  again  return !  Shoulder  to  shoul- 
der they  wont  through  the  Revolution,  hand  in  hand  they  stood 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     317 

round  the  administration  of  Washington,  and  felt  his  own  great 
arm  lean  on  them  for  support.  Unkind  feeling,  if  it  exist,  alien- 
ation, and  distrust  are  the  growth,  unnatural  to  such  soils,  of 
false  principles  since  sown.  They  are  weeds,  the  seeds  of  which 
that  same  great  arm  never  scattered. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomium  upon  Massachu- 
setts; she  needs  none.  There  she  is.  Behold  her,  and  judge  for 
yourselves.  There  is  her  history ;  the  world  knows  it  by  heart. 
The  past,  at  least,  is  secure.  There  is  Boston,  and  Concord, 
and  Lexington,  and  Bunker  Hill;  and  there  they  will  remain  for 
ever.  The  bones  of  her  sons,  falling  in  the  great  struggle  for 
Independence,  now  lie  mingled  with  the  soil  of  every  State  from 
New  England  to  Georgia ;  and  there  they  will  lie  for  ever.  And 
Sir,  where  American  Liberty  raised  its  first  voice,  and  where  its 
youth  was  nurtured  and  sustained,  there  it  still  lives,  in  the 
strength  of  its  manhood  and  full  of  its  original  spirit.  If  discord 
and  disunion  shall  wound  it,  if  party  strife  and  blind  ambition 
shall  hawk  at  and  tear  it,  if  folly  and  madness,  if  uneasiness 
under  salutary  and  necessary  restraint,  shall  succeed  in  sepa- 
rating it  from  that  Union,  by  which  alone  its  existence  is  made 
sure,  it  will  stand,  in  the  end,  by  the  side  of  that  cradle  in  which 
its  infancy  was  rocked ;  it  will  stretch  forth  its  arm  with  what- 
ever of  vigor  it  may  still  retain  over  the  friends  who  gather 
round  it;  and  it  will  fall  at  last,  if  fall  it  must,  amidst  the  proud- 
est monuments  of  its  own  glory,  and  on  the  very  spot  of  its 
origin. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  performed,  Mr.  President,  by  far  the 
most  grave  and  important  duty,  which  I  feel  to  be  devolved  on 
me  by  this  occasion.  It  is  to  state,  and  to  defend,  what  I  con- 
ceive to  be  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution  under  which 
we  are  here  assembled.  I  might  well  have  desired  that  so 
weighty  a  task  should  have  fallen  into  other  and  abler  hands.  1 
could  have  wished  that  it  should  have  been  executed  by  those 
whose  character  and  experience  give  weight  and  inliuence  to 
their  opinions,  such  as  cannot  possibly  belong  to  mine.  But, 
Sir,  I  have  met  the  occasion,  not  sought  it;  and  I  shall  proceed 
to  state  my  own  sentiments,  without  challenging  for  them  any 
particular  regard,  with  studied  plainness,  and  as  much  precision 
11  as  possible. 

27  * 


318  SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Carolina 
to  maintain,  that  it  is  a  right  of  the  State  legislatures  to  inter- 
fere, whenever,  in  their  judgment,  this  government  transcends  its 
constitutional  limits,  and  to  arrest  the  operation  of  its  laws. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right,  as  a  right  existing 
under  the  Constitution,  not  as  a  right  to  overthrow  it  on  the 
ground  of  extreme  necessity,  such  as  would  justify  violent  revo- 
lution. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the  part  of  the 
States,  thus  to  interfere,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  exer- 
cise of  power  by  the  general  government,  of  checking  it,  and  of 
compelling  it  to  conform  to  their  opinion  of  the  extent  of  its 
powers. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain,  that  the  ultimate  power  of 
judging  of  the  constitutional  extent  of  its  own  authority  is  not 
lodged  exclusively  in  the  general  government,  or  any  branch  of 
it ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  States  may  lawfully  decide  for 
themselves,  and  each  State  for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case, 
the  act  of  the  general  government  transcends  its  power. 

I  understand  him  to  insist,  that,  if  the  exigency  of  the  case,  in 
the  opinion  of  any  State  government,  require  it,  such  State  gov- 
ernment may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul  an  act  of 
the  general  government  which  it  deems  plainly  and  palpably 
unconstitutional. 

This  is  the  sum  of  what  I  understand  from  him  to  be  the 
South  Carolina  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  which  he  maintains. 
I  propose  to  consider  it,  and  compare  it  with  the  Constitution. 
Allow  me  to  say,  as  a  preliminary  remark,  that  I  call  this  the 
South  Carolina  doctrine  only  because  the  gentleman  himself  has 
so  denominated  it.  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  say  that  South 
Carolina,  as  a  State,  has  ever  advanced  these  sentiments.  I 
hope  she  has  not,  and  never  may.  That  a  great  majority  of  her 
people  are  opposed  to  the,  tariff  laws,  is  doubtless  true.  That  a 
majority,  somewhat  less  than  that  just  mentioned,  conscientious- 
ly believe  these  laws  unconstitutional,  may  probably  also  be 
true.  But  that  any  majority  holds  to  the  right  of  direct  State 
inteiference  at  State  discretion,  the  right  of  nullifying  acts  of 
Congress  by  acts  of  State  legislation,  is  more  than  I  know, 
and  what  I  shall  be  slow  to  believe. 

That  there  are  individuals  besides  the  honorable  gentleman 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     319 

who  do  maintain  these  opinions,  is  quite  certain.  I  recollect 
the  recent  expression  of  a  sentiment,  which  circumstances  at- 
tending its  utterance  and  publication  justify  us  in  supposing 
was  not  unpremeditated.  "  The  sovereignty  of  the  State,  — 
never  to  be  controlled,  construed,  or  decided  on,  but  by  her  own 
feelings  of  honorable  justice." 

Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said,  that,  for  the  purpose  of  being  clearly 
understood,  he  would  state  that  his  proposition  was  in  the  words  of  the 
Virginia  resolution,  as  follows  :  — 

"  That  this  assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremptorily  declare,  that  it 
views  the  powers  of  the  federal  government,  as  resulting  from  the 
compact  to  which  the  States  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense 
and  intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that  compact,  as  no  farther 
valid  than  they  are  authorized  by  the  grants  enumerated  in  that  com- 
pact ;  and  that,  in  case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exer- 
cise of  other  powers,  not  granted  by  the  said  compact,  the  States  who 
are  parties  thereto  have  the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound,  to  interpose, 
for  arresting  the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining  within  their 
respective  limits  the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  appertaining  to 
them." 

Mr.  Webster  resumed  :  — 

I  am  quite  aware,  Mr.  President,  of  the  existence  of  the  reso- 
lution which  the  gentleman  read,  and  has  now  repeated,  and 
that  he  relies  on  it  as  his  authority.  I  know  the  .source,  too, 
from  which  it  is  understood  to  have  proceeded.  I  need  not  say 
that  I  have  much  respect  for  the  constitutional  opinions  of  Mr. 
Madison ;  they  would  weigh  greatly  with  me  always.  But  be- 
fore the  authority  of  his  opinion  be  vouched  for  the  gentleman's 
proposition,  it  will  be  proper  to  consider  what  is  the  fair  inter- 
pretation of  that  resolution,  to  which  Mr.  Madison  is  understood 
to  have  given  his  sanction.  As  the  gentleman  construes  it,  it  is 
an  authority  for  him.  Possibly,  he  may  not  have  adopted  the 
right  construction.  That  resolution  declares,  that,  in  the  case  of 
the  dangerous  exercise  of  powers  not  granted  by  the  general  gov- 
ernment, the  States  may  interpose,  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the 
evil.  But  how  interpose,  and  what  does  this  declaration  pur- 
port? Does  it  mean  no  more  than  that  there  may  be  extreme 
cases,  in  which  the  people,  in  any  mode  of  assembling,  may  re- 
sist usurpation,  and  relieve  themselves  from  a  tyrannical  govern- 
ment? No  ore  will  deny  this.  Such  resistance  is  not  only 


320     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

acknowledged  to  be  just  in  America,  but  in  England  also 
Blackstone  admits  as  much,  in  the  theory,  and  practice,  too,  of 
the  English  constitution.  We,  Sir,  who  oppose  the  Carolina 
doctrine,  do  not  deny  that  the  people  may,  if  they  choose,  throw 
off  any  government  when  it  becomes  oppressive  and  intolerable, 
and  erect  a  better  in  its  stead.  We  all  know  that  civil  institu- 
tions are  established  for  the  public  benefit,  and  that  when  they 
eease  to  answer  the  ends  of  their  existence  they  may  be  changed. 
But  I  do  not  understand  the  doctrine  now  contended  for  to  be 
that,  which,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  we  may  call  the  right  of 
revolution.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  maintain,  that,  with- 
out revolution,  without  civil  commotion,  without  rebellion,  a 
remedy  for  supposed  abuse  and  transgression  of  the  powers  of 
the  general  government  lies  in  a  direct  appeal  to  the  interfer- 
ence of  the  State  governments. 

Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said  :  He  did  not  contend  for  the  mere 
right  of  revolution,  but  for  the  right  of  constitutional  resistance.  What 
he  maintained  was,  that  in  case  of  a  plain,  palpable  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution by  the  general  government,  a  State  may  interpose  ;  and  that 
this  interposition  is  constitutional. 

Mr.  Webster  resumed  :  — 

So,  Sir,  I  understood  the  gentleman,  and  am  happy  to  find 
that  I  did  not  misunderstand  him.  What  he  contends  for  is, 
that  it  is  constitutional  to  interrupt  the  administration  of  the 
Constitution  itself,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  chosen  and 
sworn  to  administer  it,  by  the  direct  interference,  in  form  of  law, 
of  the  States,  in  virtue  of  their  sovereign  capacity.  The  in- 
herent right  in  the  people  to  reform  their  government  I  do  not 
deny ;  and  they  have  another  right,  and  that  is,  to  resist  uncon- 
stitutional laws,  without  overturning  the  government.  It  is  no 
doctrine  of  mine  that  unconstitutional  laws  bind  the  people. 
The  great  question  is,  Whose  prerogative  is  it  to  decide  on  the 
constitutionality  or  uncon^titutionality  of  the  laws?  On  that, 
the  main  debate  hinges.  The  proposition,  that,  in  case  of  a 
supposed  violation  of  the  Constitution  by  Congress,  the  States 
have  a  constitutional  right  to  interfere  and  annul  the  law  of 
Congress,  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman.  I  do  not  admit 
it.  If  the  gentleman  had  intended  no  more  than  to  assert  the 
right  of  revolution  for  justifiable  cause,  he  would  have  said  only 
what  all  agree  to.  But  I  cannot  conceive  that  there  can  be  a 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     321 

middle  course,  between  submission  to  the  laws,  when  regularly 
pronounced  constitutional,  on  the  one  hand,  and  open  resistance, 
which  is  revolution  or  rebellion,  on  the  other.  I  say,  the  right 
of  a  State  to  annul  a  law  of  Congress  cannot  be  maintained,  but 
on  the  ground  of  the  inalienable  right  of  man  to  resist  oppres- 
sion ;  that  is  to  say,  upon  the  ground  of  revolution.  I  admit 
that  there  is  an  ultimate  violent  remedy,  above  the  Constitution 
and  in  defiance  of  the  Constitution,  which  may  be  resorted  1o 
when  a  revolution  is  to  be  justified.  But  I  do  not  admit,  that, 
under  the  Constitution  and  in  conformity  with  it,  there  is  any 
mode  in  which  a  State  government,  as  a  member  of  the  Union, 
can  interfere  and  stop  the  progress  of  the  general  government, 
by  force  of  her  own  laws,  under  any  circumstances  whatever. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  government 
and  the  source  of  its  power.  Whose  agent  is  it?  Is  it  the 
creature  of  the  State  legislatures,  or  the  creature  of  the  people  ? 
If  the  government  of  the  United  States  be  the  agent  of  the  State 
governments,  then  they  may  control  it,  provided  they  can  agree 
in  the  manner  of  controlling  it ;  if  it  be  the  agent  of  the  people, 
then  the  people  alone  can  control  it,  restrain  it,  modify,  or  re- 
form it.  It  is  observable  enough,  that  the  doctrine  for  which  the 
honorable  gentleman  contends  leads  him  to  the  necessity  of 
maintaining,  not  only  that  this  general  government  is  the  crea- 
ture of  the  States,  but  that  it  is  the  creature  of  each  of  the 
States  severally,  so  that  each  may  assert  the  power  for  itself  of 
determining  whether  it  acts  within  the  limits  of  its  authority. 
It  is  the  servant  of  four-and-twenty  masters,  of  different  wills 
and  different  purposes,  and  yet  bound  to  obey  all.  This  absurd- 
ity (for  it  seems  no  less)  arises  from  a  misconception  as  to  the 
origin  of  this  government  and  its  true  character.  It  is,  Sir,  the 
people's  Constitution,  the  people's  government,  made  for  the 
people,  made  by  the  people,  and  answerable  to  the  people.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  have  declared  that  this  Constitution 
shall  be  the  supreme  Jaw.  We  must  either  admit  the  proposi- 
tion, or  dispute  their  authority.  The  States  are,  unquestionably, 
sovereign,  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not  affected  by  this  su- 
preme law.  But  the  State  legislatures,  as  political  bodies, 
however  sovereign,  are  yet  not  sovereign  over  the  people.  So 
far  as  the  people  have  given  power  to  the  general  government, 
so  far  the  grant  is  unquestionably  good,  and  the  government 


322     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

holds  of  the  people,  and  not  of  the  State  governments  We  are 
all  agents  of  the  same  supreme  power,  the  people.  The  general 
government  and  the  State  governments  derive  their  authority 
from  the  same  source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the  other,  be 
called  primary,  though  one  is  definite  and  restricted,  and  the 
other  general  and  residuary.  The  national  government  pos- 
sesses those  powers  which  it  can  be  shown  the  people  have  con- 
ferred on  it,  and  no  more.  All  the  rest  belongs  to  the  State 
governments,  or  to  the  people  themselves.  So  far  as  the  people 
have  restrained  State  sovereignty,  by  the  expression  of  their  will, 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  far,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, State  sovereignty  is  effectually  controlled.  I  do  not  con- 
tend that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be,  controlled  farther.  The  senti- 
ment to  which  I  have  referred  propounds  that  State  sovereignty 
is  only  to  be  controlled  by  its  own  "feeling  of  justice";  that  is 
to  say,  it  is  not  to  be  controlled  at  all,  for  one  who  is  to  follow 
his  own  feelings  is  under  no  legal  control.  Now,  however  men 
may  think  this  ought  to  be,  the  fact  is,  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  chosen  to  impose  control  on  State  sovereign- 
ties. There  are  those,  doubtless,  who  wish  they  had  been  left 
without  restraint ;  but  the  Constitution  has  ordered  the  matter 
differently.  To  make  war,  for  instance,  is  an  exercise  of  sover- 
eignty ;  but  the  Constitution  declares  that  no  State  shall  make 
war  To  coin  money  is  another  exercise  of  sovereign  power ; 
but  no  State  is  at  liberty  to  coin  money.  Again,  the  Constitu- 
tion says  that  no  sovereign  State  shall  be  so  sovereign  as  to 
make  a  treaty.  These  prohibitions,  it  must  be  confessed,  are  a 
control  on  the  State  sovereignty  of  South  Carolina,  as  well  as 
of  the  other  States,  which  does  not  arise  "  from  her  own  feelings 
of  honorable  justice."  The  opinion  referred  to,  therefore,  is  in 
defiance  of  the  plainest  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

There  are  other  proceedings  of  public  bodies  which  have 
already  been  alluded  to,  and  to  which  I  refer  again,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  more  fully  what  is  the  length  and  breadth 
of  that  doctrine,  denominated  the  Carolina  doctrine,  which  the 
honorable  member  has  now  stood  up  on  this  floor  to  maintain. 
In  one  of  them  I  find  it  resolved,  that  "  the  tariff  of  1828,  and 
every  other  tariff  designed  to  promote  one  branch  of  industry  at 
the  expense  of  others,  is  contrary  to  the  meaning  and  intention 
of  the  federal  compact;  and  such  a  dangerous,  palpable,  and 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  323 

deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  by  a  determined  majority,  wield- 
ing the  general  government  beyond  the  limits  of  its  delegated 
powers,  as  calls  upon  the  States  which  compose  the  suffering 
minority,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  to  exercise  the  powers 
which,  as  sovereigns,  necessarily  devolve  upon  them,  when  their 
compact  is  violated." 

Observe,  Sir,  that  this  resolution  holds  the  tariff  of  1828,  and 
every  other  tariff  designed  to  promote  one  branch  of  industry 
at  the  expense  of  another,  to  be  such  a  dangerous,  palpable,  and 
deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  as  calls  upon  the  States,  in  their 
sovereign  capacity,  to  interfere  by  their  own  authority.  This 
denunciation,  Mr.  President,  you  will  please  to  observe,  includes 
our  old  tariff  of  1816,  as  well  as  all  others ;  because  that  was 
established  to  promote  the  interest  of  the  manufacturers  of  cot- 
ton, to  the  manifest  and  admitted  injury  of  the  Calcutta  cotton 
trade.  Observe,  again,  that  all  the  qualifications  are  here  re- 
hearsed and  charged  upon  the  tariff,  which  are  necessary  to  bring 
the  case  within  the  gentleman's  proposition.  The  tariff  is  a 
usurpation  ;  it  is  a  dangerous  usurpation ;  it  is  a  palpable  usur- 
pation ;  it  is  a  deliberate  usurpation.  It  is  such  a  usurpation, 
therefore,  as  calls  upon  the  States  to  exercise  their  right  of  inter- 
ference. Here  is  a  case,  then,  within  the  gentleman's  principles, 
and  all  his  qualifications  of  his  principles.  It  is  a  case  for  action. 
The  Constitution  is  plainly,  dangerously,  palpably,  and  deliber- 
ately violated;  and  the  States  must  interpose  their  own  au- 
thority to  arrest  the  law.  Let  us  suppose  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  to  express  this  same  opinion,  by  the  voice  of  her  legis- 
lature. That  would  be  very  imposing ;  but  what  then  ?  Is  the 
voice  of  one  State  conclusive  ?  It  so  happens  that,  at  the  very 
moment  when  South  Carolina  resolves  that  the  tariff  laws  are 
unconstitutional,  Pennsylvania  and  Kentucky  resolve  exactly 
the  reverse.  They  hold  those  laws  to  be  both  highly  proper  and 
strictly  constitutional.  And  now,  Sir,  how  does  the  honorable 
member  propose  to  deal  with  this  case?  How  does  he  re- 
lieve us  from  this  difficulty,  upon  any  principle  of  his?  His 
construction  gets  us  into  it;  how  does  he  propose  to  get  us 
out? 

In  Carolina,  the  tariff  is  a  palpable,  deliberate  usurpation ; 
Carolina,  therefore,  may  nullify  it,  and  refuse  to  pay  the  duties. 
In  Pennsylvania,  it  is  both  clearly  constitutional  and  highly  ex- 


324  SECOND   SPEECH  ON   TOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

pedient;  and  there  the  duties  are  to  be  paid.  And  yet  we  live 
under  a  government  of  uniform  laws,  and  under  a  Constitution 
too,  which  contains  an  express  provision,  as  it  happens,  that  all 
duties  shall  be  equal  in  all  the  States.  Does  not  this  approach 
absurdity  ? 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such  questions,  independent  of 
either  of  the  States,  is  not  the  whole  Union  a  rope  of  sand  ? 
Are  we  not  thrown  back  again,  precisely,  upon  the  old  Confeder- 
ation ? 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four-and-twenty  interpreters  of 
constitutional  law,  each  with  a  power  to  decide  for  itself,  and 
none  with  authority  to  bind  any  body  else,  and  this  constitutional 
law  the  only  bond  of  their  union !  What  is  such  a  state  of 
things  but  a  mere  connection  during  pleasure,  or,  to  use  the 
phraseology  of  the  times,  during  feeling*?^  And  that  feeling, 
too,  not  the  feeling  of  the  people,  who  established  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  the  feeling  of  the  State  governments. 

In  another  of  the  South  Carolina  addresses,  having  premised 
that  the  crisis  requires  "  all  the  concentrated  energy  of  passion," 
an  attitude  of  open  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  Union  is  advised. 
Open  resistance  to  the  laws,  then,  is  the  constitutional  remedy, 
the  conservative  power  of  the  State,  which  the  South  Carolina 
doctrines  teach  for  the  redress  of  political  evils,  real  or  imagi- 
nary. And  its  authors  further  say,  that,  appealing  with  confi- 
dence to  the  Constitution  itself,  to  justify  their  opinions,  they 
cannot  consent  to  try  their  accuracy  by  the  courts  of  justice.  In 
one  sense,  indeed,  Sir,  this  is  assuming  an  attitude  of  open 
resistance  in  favor  of  liberty.  But  what  sort  of  liberty  ?  The 
liberty  of  establishing  their  own  opinions,  in  defiance  of  the 
opinions  of  all  others;  the  liberty  of  judging  and  of  deciding 
exclusively  themselves,  in  a  matter  in  which  others  have  as 
much  right  to  judge  and  decide  as  they;  the  liberty  of  placing 
their  own  opinions  above  the  judgment  of  all  others,  above  the 
Kws,  and  above  the  Constitution.  This  is  their  liberty,  and 
this  is  the  fair  result  of  the  proposition  contended  for  by  the 
honorable  gentleman.  Or,  it  may  be  more  properly  said,  it 'is 
identical  with  it,  rather  than  a  result  from  it. 

In  the  same  publication  we  find  the  following: — "  Previously 
to  our  Revolution,  when  the  arm  of  oppression  was  stretched 
over  New  England,  where  did  our  Northern  brethren  meet  with 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     -325 

a  braver  sympathy  than  that  which  sprung  from  the  bosoms  of 
Carolinians  ?  We  had  no  extortion,  no  oppression,  no  collision 
with  the  king's  ministers,  no  navigation  interests  springing  up, 
in  envious  rivalry  of  England." 

This  seems  extraordinary  language.  South  Carolina  no  col- 
lision with  the  king's  ministers  in  1775 !  No  extortion !  No 
oppression !  But,  Sir,  it  is  also  most  significant  language. 
Does  any  man  doubt,  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  penned? 
Can  any  one  fail  to  see  that  it  was  designed  to  raise  in  the 
reader's  mind  the  question,  whether,  at  this  time,  —  that  is  to 
say,  in  1828,  —  South  Carolina  has  any  collision  with  the  king's 
ministers,  any  oppression,  or  extortion,  to  fear  from  England  ? 
whether,  in  short,  England  is  not  as  naturally  the  friend  of 
South  Carolina  as  New  England,  with  her  navigation  interests) 
springing  up  in  envious  rivalry  of  England  ? 

Is  it  not  strange,  Sir,  that  an  intelligent  man  in  South  Caro- 
lina, in  1828,  should  thus  labor  to  prove  that,  in  1775,  there  was 
no  hostility,  no  cause  of  war,  between  South  Carolina  and  Eng- 
land ?  That  she  had  no  occasion,  in  reference  to  her  own  inter- 
est, or  from  a  regard  to  her  own  welfare,  to  take  up  arms  in  the 
Revolutionary  contest  ?  Can  any  one  account  for  the  expression 
of  such  strange  sentiments,  and  their  circulation  through  the 
State,  otherwise  than  by  supposing  the  object  to  be  what  I  havf 
already  intimated,  to  raise  the  question,  if  they  had  no  "  collis- 
ion" (mark  the  expression)  with  the  ministers  of  King  George 
the  Third,  in  1775,  what  collision  have  they,  in  1828,  with  the 
ministers  of  King  George  the  Fourth  ? "  What  is  there  now  in 
the  existing  state  of  things,  to  separate  Carolina  from  Old,  more, 
or  rather,  than  from  New  England  ? 

Resolutions,  Sir,  have  been  recently  passed  by  the  legislature 
of  South  Carolina.  I  need  not  refer  to  them ;  they  go  no  far- 
ther than  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  has  gone,  and  I  hope 
not  so  far.  I  content  myself,  therefore,  with  debating  the  matter 
with  him. 

And  now,  Sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say  on  this  subject  is, 
that  at  no  time,  and  under  no  circumstances,  has  New  Eng- 
land, or  any  State  in  New  England,  or  any  respectable  body 
of  persons  in  New  England,  or  any  public  man  of  standing 
in  New  England,  put  forth  such  a  doctrine  as  this  Carolina 
doctrine. 

VOL.  in.  28 


320     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he  can  find  none,  to  sup- 
port his  own  opinions  by  New  England  authority.  New  Eng- 
land has  studied  the  Constitution  in  other  schools,  and  under 
other  teachers.  She  looks  upon  it  with  other  regards,  and  deems 
more  highly  and  reverently  both  of  its  just  authority  and  its 
utility  and  excellence.  The  history  of  her  legislative  proceed- 
ings may  be  traced.  The  ephemeral  effusions  of  temporary  tod- 
ies, called  together  by  the  excitement  of  the  occasion,  may  be 
hunted  up ;  they  have  been  hunted  up.  The  opinions  and  votes 
of  her  public  men,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  may  be  explored. 
It  will  all  be  in  vain.  The  Carolina  doctrine  can  derive  from 
her  neither  countenance  nor  support.  She  rejects  it  now ;  she 
always  did  reject  it;  and  till  she  loses  her  senses,  she  always 
will  reject  it.  The  honorable  member  has  referred  to  expres- 
sions on  the  subject  of  the  embargo  lawT,  made  in  this  place, 
by  an  honorable  and  venerable  gentleman,*  now  favoring  us 
with  his  presence.  He  quotes  that  distinguished  Senator  as 
saying,  that,  in  his  judgment,  the  embargo  law  was  unconsti- 
tutional, and  that  therefore,  in  his  opinion,  the  people  were  not 
bound  to  obey  it.  That,  Sir,  is  perfectly  constitutional  language. 
An  unconstitutional  law  is  not  binding;  but  then  it  does  not  rest 
with  a  resolution  or  a  law  of  a  State  legislature  to  decide  ivhelher 
an  act  of  Congress  be  or  be  not  constitutional.  An  unconsti- 
tutional act  of  Congress  would  not  bind  the  people  of  this  Dis- 
trict, although  they  have  no  legislature  to  interfere  in  their  be- 
half; and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  constitutional  law  of  Congress 
does  bind  the  citizens  of  every  State,  although  all  their  legisla- 
tures should  undertake  to  annul  it  by  act  or  resolution.  The 
venerable  Connecticut  Senator  is  a  constitutional  lawyer,  of 
sound  principles  and  enlarged  knowledge ;  a  statesman  prac- 
tised and  experienced,  bred  in  the  company  of  Washington,  and 
holding  just  views  upon  the  nature  of  our  governments.  He 
believed  the  embargo  unconstitutional,  and  so  did  others ;  but 
what  then  ?  Who  did  he  suppose  was  to  decide  that  question  ? 
The  State  legislatures?  Certainly  not.  No  such  sentiment 
ever  escaped  his  lips. 

Let  us  follow  up,  Sir,  this  New  England  opposition  to  the 
embargo  laws  ;  let  us  trace  it,  till  we  discern  the  principle  which 

*  Mr  Hillhouse,  of  Connecticut. 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON    FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  327 

controlled  and  governed  New  England .  throughout  the  whole 
course  of  that  opposition.  We  shall  then  see  what  similarity 
there  is  between  the  New  England  school  of  constitutional  opin- 
ions, and  this  modern  Carolina  school.  The  gentleman,  I  think, 
read  a  petition  from  some  single  individual  addressed  to  the  leg- 
islature of  Massachusetts,  asserting  the  Carolina  doctrine;  that 
is,  the  right  of  State  interference  to  arrest  the  laws  of  the  Union. 
The  fate  of  that  petition  shows  the  sentiment  of  the  legislature. 
It  met  no  favor.  The  opinions  of  Massachusetts  were  very  dif- 
ferent. They  had  been  expressed  in  1798,  in  answer  to  the  res- 
olutions of  Virginia,  and  she  did  not  depart  from  them,  nor  bend 
them  to  the  times.  Misgoverned,  wronged,  oppressed,  as  she 
felt  herself  to  be,  she  still  held  fast  her  integrity  to  the  Union. 
The  gentleman  may  find  in  her  proceedings  much  evidence  of 
dissatisfaction  with  the  measures  of  government,  and  great  and 
deep  dislike  to  the  embargo ;  all  this  makes  the  case  so  much 
the  stronger  for  her ;  for,  notwithstanding  ah1  this  dissatisfaction 
and  dislike,  she  still  claimed  no  right  to  sever  the  bonds  of 
the  Union.  There  was  heat,  and  there  was  anger  in  her  po- 
litical feeling.  Be  it  so ;  but  neither  her  heat  nor  her  anger 
betrayed  her  into  infidelity  to  the  government.  The  gentleman 
labors  to  prove  that  she  disliked  the  embargo  as  much  as  South 
Carolina  dislikes  the  tariff,  and  expressed  her  dislike  as  strong- 
ly. Be  it  so ;  but  did  she  propose  the  Carolina  remedy  ?  did 
she  threaten  to  interfere,  by  State  authority,  to  annul  the  laws 
of  the  Union  ?  That  is  the  question  for  the  gentleman's  con- 
sideration. 

No  doubt,  Sir,  a  great  majority  of  the  people  of  New  Eng- 
land conscientiously  believed  the  embargo  law  of  1807  unconsti- 
tutional ;  as  conscientiously,  certainly,  as  the  people  of  South 
Carolina  hold  that  opinion  of  the  tariff.  They  reasoned  thus : 
Congress  has  power  to  regulate  commerce ;  but  here  is  a  law, 
they  said,  stopping  all  commerce,  and  stopping  it  indefinitely. 
The  law  is  perpetual ;  that  is,  it  is  not  limited  in  point  of  time, 
and  must  of  course  continue  until  it  shall  be  repealed  by  some 
other  law.  It  is  as  perpetual,  therefore,  as  the  law  against  trea- 
son or  murder.  Now,  is  this  regulating  commerce,  or  destroying 
it  ?  Is  it  guiding,  controlling,  giving  the  rule  to  commerce,  as  & 
subsisting  thing,  or  is  it  putting  an  end  to  it  altogether  ?  Noth- 
ing is  more  certain,  than  that  a  majority  in  New  England  deemed 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

this  law  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  The  very  case  required 
by  the  gentleman  to  justify  State  interference  had  then  arisen. 
Massachusetts  believed  this  law  to  be  "  a  deliberate,  palpable, 
and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted  by  the  Constitu- 
tion." Deliberate  it  was,  for  it  was  long  continued ;  palpable 
she  thought  it,  as  no  words  in  the  Constitution  gave  the  power, 
and  only  a  construction,  in  her  opinion  most  violent,  raised  it ; 
dangerous  it  was,  since  it  threatened  utter  ruin  to  her  most  im- 
portant interests.  Here,  then,  was  a  Carolina  case.  How  did 
Massachusetts  deal  with  it?  It  was,  as  she  thought,  a  plain, 
manifest,  palpable  violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  brought 
ruin  to  her  doors.  Thousands  of  families,  and  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  individuals,  were  beggared  by  it.  While  she  saw 
and  felt  all  this,  she  saw  and  felt  also,  that,  as  a  measure  of 
national  policy,  it  was  perfectly  futile ;  that  the  country  was  no 
way  benefited  by  that  which  caused  so  much  individual  dis- 
tress; that  it  was  efficient  only  for  the  production  of  evil,  and 
all  that  evil  inflicted  on  ourselves.  In  such  a  case,  under  such 
circumstances,  how  did  Massachusetts  demean  herself?  Sir, 
she  remonstrated,  she  memorialized,  she  addressed  herself  to  the 
general  government,  not  exactly  "  with  the  concentrated  energy 
of  passion,"  but  with  her  own  strong  sense,  and  the  energy  of 
sober  conviction.  But  she  did  not  interpose  the  arm  of  her  own 
power  to  arrest  the  law,  and  break  the  embargo.  Far  from  it 
Her  principles  bound  her  to  two  things ;  and  she  followed  her 
principles,  lead  where  they  might.  First,  to  submit  to  every 
constitutional  law  of  Congress,  and  secondly,  if  the  constitu- 
tional validity  of  the  law  be  doubted,  to  refer  that  question  to 
the  decision  of  the  proper  tribunals.  The  first  principle  is  vain 
and  ineffectual  without  the  second.  A  majority  of  us  in  New 
England  believed  the  embargo  law  unconstitutional ;  but  the 
great  question  was,  and  always  will  be  in  such  cases,  Who  is  to 
decide  this  ?  Who  is  to  judge  between  the  people  and  the  gov- 
ernment? And,  Sir,  it  is  quite  plain,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  confers  on  the  government  itself,  to  be  exer- 
cised by  its  appropriate  department,  and  under  its  own  respon- 
sibility to  the  people,  this  power  of  deciding  ultimately  and  con- 
clusively upon  the  just  extent  of  its  own  authority.  If  this  had 
not  been  done,  we  should  not  have  advanced  a  single  step. be- 
yond the  old  Confederation. 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     329 

Being  fully  of  opinion  that  the  embargo  law  was  unconstitu- 
tional, the  people  of  New  England  were  yet  equally  clear  in  the 
opinion,  (it  was  a  matter  they  did  doubt  upon,)  that  the  question, 
after  all,  must  be  decided  by  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  United 
States.  Before  those  tribunals,  therefore,  they  brought  the  ques- 
tion. Under  the  provisions  of  the  law,  they  had  given  bonds  to 
millions  in  amount,  and  which  were  alleged  to  be  forfeited, 
They  suffered  the  bonds  to  be  sued,  and  thus  raised  the  ques- 
tion. In  the  old-fashioned  way  of  settling  disputes,  they  went 
to  law.  The  case  came  to  hearing,  and  solemn  argument;  and 
he  who  espoused  their  cause,  and  stood  up  for  them  against  the 
validity  of  the  embargo  act,  was  none  other  than  that  great 
man,  of  whom  the  gentleman  has  made  honorable  mention, 
Samuel  Dexter.  He  was  then,  Sir,  in  the  fulness  of  his  knowl- 
edge, and  the  maturity  of  his  strength.  He  had  retired  from 
long  and  distinguished  public  service  here,  to  the  renewed  pur- 
suit of  professional  duties,  carrying  with  him  all  that  enlarge- 
ment and  expansion,  all  the  new  strength  and  force,  which  an 
acquaintance  with  the  more  general  subjects  discussed  in  the 
national  councils  is  capable  of  adding  to  professional  attain- 
ment, in  a  mind  of  true  greatness  and  comprehension.  He  was 
a  lawyer,  and  he  was  also  a  statesman.  He  had  studied  the 
Constitution,  when  he  filled  public  station,  that  he  might  defend 
it;  he  had  examined  its  principles  that  he  might  maintain  them. 
•More  than  all  men,  or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man,  he  was  at- 
tached to  the  general  government  and  to  the  union  of  the  States. 
His  feelings  and  opinions  all  ran  in  that  direction.  A  question 
of  constitutional  law,  too,  was,  of  all  subjects,  that  one  which 
was  best  suited  to  his  talents  and  learning.  Aloof  from  techni- 
cality, and  unfettered  by  artificial  rule,  such  a  question  gave 
opportunity  for  that  deep  and  clear  analysis,  that  mighty  grasp 
of  principle,  which  so  much  distinguished  his  higher  efforts.  His 
very  statement  was  argument ;  his  inference  seemed  demonstra- 
tion. The  earnestness  of  his  own  conviction  wrought  conviction 
in  others.  One  was  convinced,  and  believed,  and  assented,  be- 
cause it  was  gratifying,  delightful,  to  think,  and  feel,  and  believe 
in  unison  \vith  an  intellect  of  such  evident  superiority. 

Mr.  Dexter,  Sir,  such  as  I  have  described  him,  argued  the 
New  England  cause.     He  put  into  his  effort  his  whole  heart,  as 
well  as  all  the  powers  of  his  understanding ;  for  he  had  avowed, 
28* 


330     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

in  the  most  public  manner,  his  entire  concurrence  with  his  neigh 
bors  on  the  point  in  dispute.  He  argued  the  cause ;  it  was  lost, 
and  New  England  submitted.  The  established  tribunals  pro- 
nounced the  law  constitutional,  and  New  England  acquiesced. 
Now,  Sir,  is  not  this  the  exact  opposite  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina?  According  to  him,  instead 
of  referring  to  the  judicial  tribunals,  we  should  have  broken  up 
the  embargo  by  laws  of  our  own ;  we  should  have  repealed  it, 
quoad  New  England ;  for  we  had  a  strong,  palpable,  and  oppres- 
sive case.  Sir,  we  believed  the  embargo  unconstitutional ;  but 
still  that  was  matter  of  opinion,  and  who  was  to  decide  it? 
We  thought  it  a  clear  case ;  but,  nevertheless,  we  did  not  take 
the  law  into  our  own  hands,  because  we  did  not  wish  to  bring 
about  a  revolution,  nor  to  break  up  the  Union  ;  for  I  maintain, 
that  between  submission  to  the  decision  of  the  constituted  tri- 
bunals, and  revolution,  or  disunion,  there  is  no  middle  ground; 
there  is  no  ambiguous  condition,  half  allegiance  and  half  rebel' 
lion.  And,  Sir,  how  futile,  how  very  futile  it  is,  to  admit  the 
right  of  State  interference,  arid  then  attempt  to  save  it*  from  the 
character  of  unlawful  resistance,  by  adding  terms  of  qualification 
to  the  causes  and  occasions,  leaving  all  these  qualifications,  like 
the  case  itself,  in  the  discretion  of  the  State  governments.  It 
must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is  said,  a  deliberate  case,  a  palpable  case, 
a  dangerous  case.  But  then  the  State  is  still  left  at  liberty  to 
decide  for  herself  what  is  clear,  what  is  deliberate,  what  is  pal- 
pable, what  is  dangerous.  Do  adjectives  and  epithets  avail  any 
thing? 

Sir,  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted,  that  the  merits  of  both 
sides  of  a  controversy  appear  very  clear,  and  very  palpable,  to 
those  who  respectively  espouse  them ;  and  both  sides  usually 
grow  clearer  as  the  controversy  advances.  South  Carolina  sees 
unconsti.utionality  in  the  tariff;  she  sees  oppression  there  also, 
and  she  sees  danger.  Pennsylvania,  with  a  vision  not  less  sharp, 
looks  at  the  same  tariff,  and  sees  no  such  thing  in  it;  she  sees 
it  all  constitutional,  all  useful,  all  safe.  The  faith  of  South  Car- 
olina is  strengthened  by  opposition,  and  she  now  not  only  sees, 
but  resolves,  that  the  tariff  is  palpably  unconstitutional,  oppres- 
sive, and  dangerous ;  but  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  behind  her 
neighbors,  and  equally  willing  to  strengthen  her  own  faith  by  a 
confident  asseveration.,  resolves,  also,  and  gives  to  every  warm 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     331 

affirmative  of  South  Carolina,  a  plain,  downright,  Pennsylvania 
negative.  South  Carolina,  to  show  the  strength  and  unity  of 
her  opinion,  brings  her  assembly  to  a  unanimity,  within  seven 
voices ;  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  outdone  in  this  respect  any  more 
than  in  others,  reduces  her  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote 
Now,  Sir,  again,  I  ask  the  gentleman,  What  is  to  be  done  ?  Are 
these  States  both  right?  Is  he  bound  to  consider  them  both 
right?  If  not,  which  is  in  the  wrong?  or  rather,  which  has  the 
best  right  to  decide  ?  And  if  he,  and  if  I,  are  not  to  know  what 
the  Constitution  means,  and  what  it  is,  till  those  two  State  leg- 
islatures, and  the  twenty-two  others,  shall  agree  in  its  construc- 
tion, what  have  we  sworn  to,  when  we  have  sworn  to  maintain 
it?  I  was  forcibly  struck,  Sir,  with  one  reflection,  as  the  gentle- 
man went  on  in  his  speech.  He  quoted  Mr.  Madison's  resolu- 
tions, to  prove  that  a  State  may  interfere,  in  a  case  of  deliberate, 
palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted.  The 
honorable  member  supposes  the  tariff  law  to  be  such  an  exercise 
of  power;  and  that  consequently  a  case  has  arisen  in  which  the 
State  may,  if  it  see  fit,  interfere  by  its  own  law.  Now  it  so 
happens,  nevertheless,  that  Mr.  Madison  deems  this  same  tariff 
law  quite  constitutional.  Instead  of  a  clear  and  palpable  vio- 
lation, it  is,  in  his  judgment,  no  violation  at  all.  So  that,  while 
they  use  his  authority  for  a  hypothetical  case,  they  reject  it  in 
the  very  case  before  them.  All  this,  Sir,  shows  the  inherent 
futility,  I  had  almost  used  a  stronger  word,  of  conceding  this 
power  of  interference  to  the  State,  and  then  attempting  to  se- 
cure it  from  abuse  by  imposing  qualifications  of  which  the 
States  themselves  are  to  judge.  One  of  two  things  is  true; 
either  the  laws  of  the  Union  are  beyond  the  discretion  and  be- 
yond the  control  of  the  States ;  or  else  we  have  no  constitution 
of  general  government,  and  are  thrust  back  again  to  the  days  of 
the  Confederation. 

Let  rne  here  say,  Sir,  that  if  the  gentleman's  doctrine  had  been 
received  and  acted  upon  in  New  England,  in  the  times  of  the 
embargo  and  non-intercourse,  we  should  probably  not  now  have 
been  here.  The  government  would  very  likely  have  gone  to 
pieces,  and  crumbled  into  dust.  No  stronger  case  can  ever  arise 
than  existed  under  those  laws ;  no  States  can  ever  entertain  a 
clearer  conviction  than  the  New  England  States  then  enter- 
tained; and  if  they  had  been  under  the  influence  of  that  heresy 


332  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

of  opinion,  as  I  must  call  it,  which  the  honorable  member 
espouses,  this  Union  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  scat- 
tered to  the  four  winds.  I  ask  the  gentleman,  therefore,  to  apply 
his  principles  to  that  case ;  I  ask  him  to  come  forth  and  declare, 
whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  New  England  States  would  have 
been  justified  in  interfering  to  break  up  the  embargo  system 
under  the  conscientious  opinions  which  they  held  upon  it? 
Had  they  a  right  to  annul  that  law  ?  Does  he  admit  or  deny  ? 
If  what  is  thought  palpably  unconstitutional  in  South  Car- 
olina justifies  that  State  in  arresting  the  progress  of  the  law, 
tell  me  whether  that  which  was  thought  palpably  unconstitu- 
tional also  in  Massachusetts  would  have  justified  her  in  doing 
the  same  thing.  Sir,  I  deny  the  whole  doctrine.  It  has  not  a 
foot  of  ground  in  the  Constitution  to  stand  on.  No  public  man 
of  reputation  ever  advanced  it  in  Massachusetts  in  the  warmest 
times,  or  could  maintain  himself  upon  it  there  at  any  time. 

I  wish  now,  Sir,  to  make  a  remark  upon  the  Virginia  resolu- 
tions of  1798.  I  cannot  undertake  to  say  how  these  resolutions 
were  understood  by  those  who  passed  them.  Then*  language  is 
not  a  little  indefinite.  In  the  case  of  the  exercise  by  Congress 
of  a  dangerous  power  not  granted  to  them,  the  resolutions  as- 
sert the  right,  on  the  part  of  the  State,  to  interfere  and  arrest  the 
progress  of  the  evil.  This  is  susceptible  of  more  than  one  inter- 
pretation. '  It  may  mean  no  more  than  that  the  States  may  in- 
terfere by  complaint  and  remonstrance,  or  by  proposing  to  the 
people  an  alteration  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  This  would 
all  be  quite  unobjectionable.  Or  it  may  be  that  no  more  is 
meant  than  to  assert  the  general  right  of  revolution,  as  against 
all  governments,  in  cases  of  intolerable  oppression.  This  no 
one  doubts,  and  this,  in  my  opinion,  is  all  that  he  who  framed 
the  resolutions  could  have  meant  by  it;  for  I  shah1  not  readily 
believe  that  he  was  ever  of  opinion  that  a  State,  under  the  Con- 
stitution .  and  in  conformity  with  it,  could,  upon  the  ground  of 
her  own  opinion  of  its  unconstitutionality,  however  clear  and 
palpable  she  might  think  the  case,  annul  a  law  of  Congress,  so 
far  as  it  should  operate  on  herself,  by  her  own  legislative  power. 

I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  Sir,  Whence  is  this  supposed  right  of 
the  States  derived  ?  Where  do  they  find  the  power  to  interfere 
with  the  laws  of  the  Union?  Sir,  the  opinion  which  the  honor- 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     333 

able  gentleman  maintains  is  a  notion  founded  in  a  total  misap- 
prehension, in  my  judgment,  of  the  origin  of  this  government, 
and  of  the  foundation  on  which  it  stands.  I  hold  it  to  be  a 
popular  government,  erected  by  the  people;  those  who  admin- 
ister it,  responsible  to  the  people ;  and  itself  capable  of  being 
amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  people  may  choose  it  should 
be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as  truly  emanating  from  the  people,  as 
the  State  governments.  It  is  created  for  one  purpose ;  the  State 
go\ernments  for  another.  It  has  its  own  powers;  they  have 
theirs.  There  is  no  more  authority  with  them  to  arrest  the 
operation  of  a  law  of  Congress,  than  with  Congress  to  arrest  the 
operation  of  their  laws.  We  are  here  to  administer  a  Constitu- 
tion emanating  immediately  from  the  people,  and  trusted  by 
them  to  our  administration.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  the  State 
governments.  It  is  of  no  moment  to  the  argument,  that  certain 
acts  of  the  State  legislatures  are  necessary  to  fill  our  seats  in  this 
body.  That  is  not  one  of  their  original  State  powers,  a  part  of 
the  sovereignty  of  the  State.  It  is  a  duty  which  the  people,  by 
the  Constitution  itself,  have  imposed  on  the  State  legislatures ; 
and  which  they  might  have  left  to  be  performed  elsewhere,  if 
they  had  seen  fit.  So  they  have  left  the  choice  of  President 
with  electors ;  but  all  this  does  not  affect  the  proposition  that 
this  whole  government,  President,  Senate,  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, is  a  popular  government.  It  leaves  it  still  all  its  pop- 
ular character.  The  governor  of  a  State  (in  some  of  the  States) 
is  chosen,  not  directly  by  the  people,  but  by  those  who  are 
chosen  by  the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  performing,  among 
other  duties,  that  of  electing  a  governor.  Is  the  government  of 
the  State,  on  that  account,  not  a  popular  government  ?  This 
government,  Sir,  is  the  independent  offspring  of  the  popular 
will.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  State  legislatures ;  nay,  more,  if 
the  whole  truth  must  be  told,  the  people  brought  it  into  exist- 
ence, established  it,  and  have  hitherto  supported  it,  for  the  very 
purpose,  amongst  others,  of  imposing  certain  salutary  restraints 
on  State  sovereignties.  The  States  cannot  now  make  war; 
they  cannot  contract  alliances ;  they  cannot  make,  each  for  itself, 
separate  regulations  of  commerce;  they  cannot  lay  imposts; 
they  cannot  coin  money.  If  this  Constitution,  Sir,  be  the  crea- 
ture of  State  legislatures,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  has  ob- 
tained a  strange  control  over  the  volitions  of  its  creators. 


334  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

The  people,  then,  Sir,  erected  this  government.  They  gave  it 
a  Constitution,  and  in  that  Constitution  they  have  enumerated 
the  powers  which  they  bestow  on  it.  They  have  made  it  a  lim- 
ited government.  They  have  defined  its  authority.  They  have 
restrained  it  to  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as  are  granted;  and 
all  others,  they  declare,  are  reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people. 
But,  Sir,  they  have  not  stopped  here.  If  they  had,  they  would 
have  accomplished  but  half  their  work.  No  definition  can  be  so 
clear,  as  to  avoid  possibility  of  doubt ;  no  limitation  so  precise, 
as  to  exclude  all  uncertainty.  Who,  then,  shall  construe  this 
grant  of  the  people  ?  Who  shall  interpret  their  will,  where  it 
may  be  supposed  they  have  left  it  doubtful  ?  With  whom  do 
they  repose  this  ultimate  right  of  deciding  on  the  powers  of  the 
government?  Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this  in  the  fullest  man- 
ner. They  have  left  it  with  the  government  itself,  in  its  appro- 
priate branches.  Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the  main  design,  for 
which  the  whole  Constitution  was  framed  and  adopted,  was  to 
establish  a  government  that  should  not  be  obliged  to  act  through 
State  agency,  or  depend  on  State  opinion  and  State  discretion. 
The  people  had  had  quite  enough  of  that  kind  of  government 
under  the  Confederation.  Under  that  system,  the  legal  action, 
the  application  of  law  to  individuals,  belonged  exclusively  to 
the  States.  Congress  could  only  recommend ;  their  acts  were 
not  of  binding  force,  till  the  States  had  adopted  and  sanc- 
tioned'them.  Are  we  in  that  condition  still?  Are  we  yet  at 
the  mercy  of  State  discretion  and  State  construction  ?  Sir,  if 
we  are,  then  vain  will  be  our  attempt  to  maintain  the  Constitu- 
tion under  which  we  sit. 

But,  Sir,  the  people  have  wisely  provided,  in  the  Constitution 
itself,  a  proper,  suitable  mode  and  tribunal  for  settling  questions 
of  constitutional  law.  There  are  in  the  Constitution  grants  of 
powers  to  Congress,  and  restrictions  on  these  powers.  There 
are,  also,  prohibitions  on  the  States.  Some  aathority  must, 
therefore,  necessarily  exist,  having  the  ultimate  jurisdiction  to  fix 
and  ascertain  the  interpretation  of  these  grants,  restrictions,  and 
prohibitions.  The  Constitution  has  itself  pointed  out,  ordained, 
and  established  that  authority.  How  has  it  accomplished  this 
great  and  essential  end  ?  By  declaring,  Sir,  that  "  the  Constitu~ 
tion,  and  the  laws  of  .the  United  States  made  in  pursuance  thereof \ 
tinall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  any  thing"  in  the  constitution 
or  laws  of  any  Stale  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding" 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     335 

This,  Sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this  the  supremacy 
of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  is  declared. 
The  people  so  will  it.  No  State  law  is  to  be  valid  which  comes 
in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  or  any  law  of  the  United 
States  passed  in  pursuance  of  it.  But  who  shall  decide  this 
question  of  interference?  To  whom  lies  the  last  appeal?  This, 
Sir,  the  Constitution  itself  decides  also,  by  declaring,  "  that  the 
judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  arising  under  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  United  States"  These  two  provisions 
cover  the  whole  ground.  They  are,  in  truth,  the  keystone  of  the 
arch !  With  these  it  is  a  government ;  without  them  it  is  a 
confederation.  In  pursuance  of  these  clear  and  express  provis- 
ions, Congress  established,  at  its  very  first  session,  in  the  judicial 
act,  a  mode  for  carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bringing 
all  questions  of  constitutional  power  to  the  final  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  It  then,  Sir,  became  a  government.  It  then 
had  the  means  of  self-protection ;  and  but  for  this,  it  would,  in 
all  probability,  have  been  now  among  things  which  are  past. 
Having  constituted  the  government,  and  declared  its  powers, 
the  people  have  further  said,  that,  since  somebody  must  decide 
on  the  extent  of  these  powers,  the  government  shall  itself  de- 
cide ;  subject,  always,  like  other  popular  governments,  to  its  re- 
sponsibility to  the  people.  And  now,  Sir,  I  repeat,  how  is  it 
that  a  State  legislature  acquires  any  power  to  interfere?  Who, 
or  what,  gives  them  the  right  to  say  to  the  people,  "  We,  who 
arc  your  agents  and  servants  for  one  purpose,  will  undertake  to 
decide,  that  your  other  agents'  and  servants,  appointed  by  you 
for  another  purpose,  have  transcended  the  authority  you  gave 
them ! "  The  reply  would  be,  I  think,  not  impertinent,  —  "  Who 
made  you  a  judge  over  another's  servants  ?  To  their  own  mas- 
ters they  stand  or  fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  State  legislatures  altogether.  It 
cannot  stand  the  test  of  examination.  Gentlemen  may  say, 
that,  in  an  extreme  case,  a  State  government  might  protect  the 
people  from  intolerable  oppression.  Sir,  in  such  a  case,  the  peo- 
ple might  protect  themselves,  without  the  aid  of  the  State  gov- 
ernments. Such  a  case  warrants  revolution.  It  must  make, 
when  it  comes,  a  law  for  itself.  A  nullifying  act  of  a  State  leg- 
islature cannot  alter  the  case,  nor  make  resistance  any  more  law- 
ful. In  maintaining  these  sentiments,  Sir,  I  am  but  asserting 


336      SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

the  rights  of  the  people.  I  state  what  they  have  declared,  and 
insist  on  their  right  to  declare  it.  They  have  chosen  to  repose 
this  power  in  the  general  government,  and  I  think  it  my  duty  to 
support  it,  like  other  constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  competency  of  South  Car- 
olina, or  any  other  State,  to  prescribe  my  constitutional  duty ; 
or  to  settle,  between  me  and  the  people,  the  validity  of  laws  of 
Congress,  for  which  I  have  voted.  I  decline  her  umpirage.  J 
have  not  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  according  to  her 
construction  of  its  clauses.  I  have  not  stipulated,  by  my  oath 
of  office  or  otherwise,  to  come  under  any  responsibility,  except 
to  the  people,  and  those  whom  they  have  appointed  to  pass  upon 
the  question,  whether  laws,  supported  by  my  votes,  conform  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  country.  And,  Sir,  if  we  look  to  the 
general  nature  of  the  case,  could  any  thing  have  been  more  pre- 
posterous, than  to  make  a  government  for  the  whole  Union, 
and  yet  leave  its  powers  subject,  not  to  one  interpretation, 
but  to  thirteen  or  twenty -four  inrerpretations  ?  Instead  of  one 
tribunal,  established  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with  power  to  de- 
cide for  all,  shall  constitutional  questions  be  left  to  four-and- 
twenty  popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for  itself,  and 
none  bound  to  respect  the  decisions  of  others ;  and  each  at  lib- 
erty, too,  to  give  a  new  construction  on  every  new  election  of 
its  own  members  ?  Would  any  thing,  with  such  a  principle  in 
it,  or  rather  with  such  a  destitution  of  all  principle,  be  fit  to  be 
called  a  government?  No,  Sir.  It  should  not  be  denominated 
a  Constitution.  It  should  be  called,  rather,  a  collection  of  top- 
ics for  everlasting  controversy ;  heads  of  debate  for  a  disputa- 
tious people.  It  would  not  be  a  government.  It  would  not.  be 
adequate  to  any  practical'  good,  or  fit  for  any  country  to  live 
under. 

To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  misunderstood,  allow  me  to 
repeat  again,  in  the  fullest  manner,  that  I  claim  no  powers  for 
the  government  by  forced  or  unfair  construction.  I  admit  that 
it  is  a  government  of  strictly  limited  powers;  of  enumerated, 
specified,  and  particularized  powers  ;  and  that  whatsoever  is  not 
granted,  is  withheld.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  and  however 
the  grant  of  powers  may  be  expressed,  its  limit  and  extent  may 
yet,  in  some  cases,  admit  of  doubt;  and  the  general  govern- 
ment would  be  good  for  nothing,  it  would  be  incapable  of  long 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  BOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  33? 

existing,  if  some  mode  had  not  been  provided  in  which  those 
doubts,  as  they  should  arise,  might  be  peaceably,  but  author- 
itatively, solved. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the  honorable  gentle- 
man's doctrine  a  little  into  its  practical  application.  Let  us 
look  at  his  probable  modus  operandi.  If  a  thing  can  be  done,  an 
ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it  is  to  be  done,  and  I  wish  to  be 
informed  how  this  State  interference  is  to  be  put  in  practice, 
without  violence,  bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will  take  the 
existing  case  of  the  tariff  law.  South  Carolina  is  said  to  have 
made  up  her  opinion  upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it  (as  we 
probably  shall  not),  she  will  then  apply  to  the  case  the  remedy 
of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must  suppose,  pass  a  law  of  her 
legislature,  declaring  the  several  acts  of  Congress,  usually  called 
the  tariff'  laws,  null  and  void,  so  far  as  they  respect  South  Caro- 
lina, or  the  citizens  thereof.  So  far,  all  is  a  paper  transaction, 
and  easy  enough.  But  the  collector  at  Charleston  is  collecting 
the  duties  imposed  by  these  tariff  laws.  He,  therefore,  must  be 
stopped.  The  collector  will  seize  the  goods  if  the  tariff  duties 
are  not  paid.  The  State  authorities  will  undertake  their  rescue, 
the  marshal,  with  his  posse,  will  come  to  the  collector's  aid,  and 
here  the  contest  begins.  The  militia  of  the  State  will  be  called 
out  to  sustain  the  nullifying  act.  They  will  march,  Sir,  under  a 
very  gallant  leader ;  for  I  believe  the  honorable  member  himself 
commands  the  militia  of  that  part  of  the  State.  He  will  raise 
the  NULLIFYING  ACT  on  his  standard,  and  spread  it  out  as  his 
banner !  It  will  have  a  preamble,  setting  forth,  that  the  tariff 
laws  are  palpable,  deliberate,  and  dangerous  violations  of  the 
Constitution !  He  will  proceed,  with  this  banner  flying,  to  the 
custom-house  in  Charleston, 

"  All  the  while, 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds." 

A  rrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the  collector  that  he  must 
edlect  no  more  duties  under  any  of  the  tariff  laws.  This  he  will 
bo  somewhat  puzzled  to  say,  by  the  way,  with  a  grave  counte- 
nance, considering  what  hand  South  Carolina  herself  had  in  that 
of  1816.  But,  Sir,  the  collector  would  not,  probably,  desist,  at  his 
bidding.  He  would  show  him  the  law  of  Congress,  the  treasury 
instruction,  and  his  own  oath  of  office.  He  would  say,  he  should 
perform  his  duty,  come  what  come  might. 
VOL.  in.  29 


338     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

Here  would  ensue  a  pause ;  for  they  say  that  a  certain  still- 
ness precedes  the  tempest.  The  trumpeter  would  hold  his 
breath  awhile,  and  before  all  this  military  array  should  fall  on 
the  custom-house,  collector,  clerks,  and  all,  it  is  very  probable 
some  of  those  composing  it  would  request  of  their  gallant  com- 
mander-in-chief  to  be  informed  a  little  upon  the  point  of  law; 
for  they  have,  doubtless,  a  just  respect  for  his  opinions  as  a  law- 
yer, as  well  as  for  his  bravery  as  a  soldier.  They  know  he  has 
read  Blackstone  and  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  Turenne  and 
Vauban.  They  would  ask  him,  therefore,  something  concern- 
ing their  rights  in  this  matter.  They  would  inquire,  whether 
it  was  not  somewhat  dangerous  to  resist  a  law  of  the  United 
States.  "What  would  be  the  nature  of  their  offence,  they  would 
wish  to  learn,  if  they,  by  military  force  and  array,  resisted  the 
execution  in  Carolina  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  and  it 
should  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  law  was  constitutional?  He 
would  answer,  of  course,  Treason.  No  lawyer  could  give  any 
other  answer.  John  Fries,  he  would  tell  them,  had  learned 
that,  some  years  ago.  How,  then,  they  would  ask,  do  you  pro- 
pose to  defend  us  ?  We  are  not  afraid  of  bullets,  but  treason  has 
a  way  of  taking  people  off'  that  we  do  not  much  relish.  How 
do  you  propose  to  defend  us  ?  "  Look  at  my  floating  banner," 
he  would  reply ;  "  see  there  the  nullifying-  law  !  "  Is  it  your 
opinion,  gallant  commander,  they  would  then  say,  that,  if  we 
should  be  indicted  for  treason,  that  same  floating  banner  of 
yours  would  make  a  good  plea  in  bar  ?  "  South  Carolina  is  a 
sovereign  State,"  he  would  reply.  That  is  true;  but  would 
the  judge  admit  our  plea  ?  "  These  tariff  laws,"  he  would 
repeat,  "are  unconstitutional,  palpably,  deliberately,  danger- 
ously." That  may  all  be  so ;  but  if  the  tribunal  should  not  hap- 
pen to  be  of  that  opinion,  shall  we  swing  for  it?  We  are  ready 
to  die  for  our  country,  but  it  is  rather  an  awkward  business, 
this  dying  without  touching  the  ground !  After  all,  that  is  a 
sort  of  hemp  tax  worse  than  any  part  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentleman  would  be  in  a  dilem- 
ma, like  that  of  another  great  general.  He  would  have  a  knot 
oefore  him  which  he  could  not  untie.  He  must  cut  it  with  his 
sword.  He  must  say  to  his  followers,  "  Defend  yourselves  with 
your  bayonets  "  ;  and  this  is  war,  —  civil  war. 

Direct  collision,  therefore,  between  force  and  force,  is  the  un- 


SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.     339 

avoidable  result  of  that  remedy  for  the  revision  of  unconstitu- 
tional laws  which  the  gentleman  contends  for.  It  must  happen 
in  the  very  first  case  to  which  it  is  applied.  Is  not  this  the  plain 
result  ?  To  resist  by  force  the  execution  of  a  law,  generally,  is 
treason.  Can  the  courts  of  the  United  States  take  notice  of  the 
indulgence  of  a  State  to  commit  treason  ?  The  common  say- 
ing, that  a  State  cannot  commit  treason  herself,  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose.  Can  she  authorize  others  to  do  it  ?  If  John  Fries 
had  produced  an  act  of  Pennsylvania,  annulling  the  law  of  Con- 
gress, would  it  have  helped  his  case  ?  Talk  about  it  as  we  will, 
these  doctrines  go  the  length  of  revolution.  They  are  incom- 
patible with  any  peaceable  administration  of  the  government. 
They  lead  directly  to  disunion  and  civil  commotion ;  and  there- 
fore it  is,  that  at  their  commencement,  when  they  are  first  found 
to  be  maintained  by  respectable  men,  and  in  a  tangible  form,  I 
enter  my  public  protest  against  them  all. 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues,  that  if  this  government  be 
the  sole  judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  powers,  whether  that 
right  of  judging  be  in  Congress  or  the  Supreme  Court,  it 
equally  subverts  State  sovereignty.  This  the  gentleman  sees,  or 
thinks  he  sees,  although  he  cannot  perceive  how  the  right  of 
judging,  in  this  matter,  if  left  to  the  exercise  of  State  legisla- 
tures, has  any  tendency  to  subvert  the  government  of  the  Union. 
The  gentleman's  opinion  may  be,  that  the  right  ought  not  to 
have  been  lodged  with  the  general  government;  he  may  like 
better  such  a  constitution  as  we  should  have  under  the  right  of 
State  interference ;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  plain  mat- 
ter of  fact.  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  Constitution  itself.  I 
ask  him  if  the  power  is  not  found  there,  clearly  and  visibly  found 
there  ?  * 

But,  Sir,  what  is  this  dangejr,  and  what  are  the  grounds  of 
it?  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  not  unalterable.  It  is  to  continue  in  its  present  form 
no  longer  than  the  people  who  established  it  shall  choose  to  con- 
tinue it.  If  they  shall  become  convinced  that  they  have  made 
an  injudicious  or  inexpedient  partition  and  distribution  of  power 
between  the  State  governments  and  the  general  government, 
they  can  alter  that  distribution  at  will. 

*  See  Note  C,  at  the  end  of  the  speech. 


340     SECOND  SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

If  any  thing  be  found  in  the  national  Constitution,  either  by 
original  provision  or  subsequent  interpretation,  which  ought 
not  to  be  in  it,  the  people  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  If  any 
construction,  unacceptable  to  them,  be  established,  so  as  to  be- 
come practically  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  they  will  amend  it, 
at  their  own  sovereign  pleasure.  But  while  the  people  choose 
to  maintain  it  as  it  is,  while  they  are  satisfied  with  it,  and  re- 
fuse to  change  it,  who  has  given,  or  who  can  give,  to  the  State 
legislatures  a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by  interference,  construction, 
or  otherwise?  Gentlemen  do  not  seem  to  recollect  that  the 
people  have  any  power  to  do  any  thing  for  themselves.  They 
imagine  there  is  no  safety  for  them,  any  longer  than  they  are 
under  the  close  guardianship  of  the  State  legislatures.  Sir,  the 
people  have  not  trusted  their  safety,  in  regard  to  the  general 
Constitution,  to  these  hands.  They  have  required  other  security, 
and  taken  other  bonds.  They  have  chosen  to  trust  themselves, 
first,  to  the  plain  words  of  the  instrument,  and  to  such  construc- 
tion as  the  government  themselves,  in  doubtful  cases,  should  put 
on  their  own  powers,  under  their  oaths  of  office,  and  subject  to 
their  responsibility  to  them ;  just  as  the  people  of  a  State  trust 
their  own  State  governments  with  a  similar  power.  Secondly, 
they  have  reposed  their  trust  in  the  efficacy  of  frequent  elections, 
and  in  their  own  power  to  remove  their  own  servants  and  agents 
whenever  they  see  cause.  Thirdly,  they  have  reposed  trust  in 
the  judicial  power,  which,  in  order  that  it  might  be  trustworthy, 
they  have  made  as  respectable,  as  disinterested,  and  as  inde- 
pendent as  was  practicable.  Fourthly,  they  have  seen  fit  to 
rely,  in  case  of  necessity,  or  high  expediency,  on  their  known 
and  admitted  power  to  alter  or  amend  the  Constitution,  peace- 
ably and  quietly,  whenever  experience  shall  point  out  defects  or 
imperfections.  And,  finally,  tl\e  people  of  the  United  States 
have  at  no  time,  in  no  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  authorized 
any  State  legislature  to  construe  or  interpret  their  high  instru- 
ment of  government;  much  less,  to  interfere,  by  their  own  power, 
to  arrest  its  course  and  operation. 

If,  Sir,  the  people  in  these  respects  had  done  otherwise  than 
they  have  done,  their  constitution  could  neither  have  been  pre- 
served, nor  would  it  have  been  worth  preserving.  And  if  its 
plain  provisions  shall  now  be  disregarded,  and  these  new  doc- 
trines interpolated  in  it,  it  will  become  as  feeble  and  helpless  a 


SECOND   SPEECH  ON   FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  341 

being  as  its  enemies,  whether  early  or  more  recent,  could  possi- 
bly desire.  It  will  exist  in  every  State  but  as  a  poor  dependent 
on  State  permission.  It  must  borrow  leave  to  be ;  and  will  be, 
no  longer  than  State  pleasure,  or  State  discretion,  sees  fit  to 
grant  the  indulgence,  and  to  prolong  its  poor  existence. 

But,  Sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are  hopes  also.  The 
people  have  preserved  this,  their  own  chosen  Constitution,  for 
forty  years,  and  have  seen  their  happiness,  prosperity,  and  re- 
nown grow  with  its  growth,  and  strengthen  with  its  strength. 
They  are  now,  generally,  strongly  attached  to  it.  Overthrown 
by  direct  assault,  it  cannot  be;  evaded,  undermined,  NULLIFIED, 
it  will  not  be,  if  we,  and  those  who  shall  succeed  us  here,  as 
agents  and  representatives  of  the  people,  shall  conscientiously 
and  vigilantly  discharge  the  two  great  branches  of  our  public 
trust,  faithfully  to  preserve,  and  wisely  to  administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons  of  my  dissent 
to  the  doctrines  which  have  been  advanced  and  maintained.  I 
am  conscious  of  having  detained  you  and  the  Senate  much  too 
long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate  with  no  previous  delibera- 
tion, such  as  is  suited  to  the  discussion  of  so  grave  and  impor- 
tant a  subject.  But  it  is  a  subject  of  which  my  heart  is  full, 
and  I  have  not  been  willing  to  suppress  the  utterance  of  its 
spontaneous  sentiments.  I  cannot,  even  now,  persuade  myself 
to  relinquish  it,  without  expressing  once  more  my  deep  conviction, 
that,  since  it  respects  nothing  less  than  the  Union  of  the  States,  it 
is  of  most  vital  and  essential  importance  to  the  public  happiness. 
I  profess,  Sir,  in  my  career  hitherto,  to  have  kept  steadily  in 
view  the  prosperity  and  honor  of  the  whole  country,  and  the 
presei  vation  of  our  Federal  Union.  It  is  to  that  Union  we  owe 
our  bafety  at  home,  and  our  consideration  and  dignity  abroad. 
It  is  to  that  Union  that  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  whatever 
makes  us  most  proud  of  our  country.  That  Union  we  reached 
only  by  the  discipline  of  our  virtues  in  the  severe  school  of  ad- 
versity. It  had  its  origin  in  the  necessities  of  disordered  finance, 
prostrate  commerce,  and  ruined  credit.  Under  its  benign  influ- 
ences, these  great  interests  immediately  awoke,  as  from  the  dead, 
and  sprang  forth  with  newness  of  life.  Every  year  of  its  dura- 
tion has  teemed  with  fresh  proofs  of  its  utility  and  its  blessings; 
and  although  our  territory  has  stretched  out  wider  and  wider, 
and  our  population  spread  farther  and  farther,  they  have  not 
29* 


342  SECOND   SPEECH  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

outrun  its  protection  or  its  benefits.     It  has  been  to  us  all  a 
copious  fountain  of  national,  social,  and  personal  happiness. 

I  have  not  allowed  myself,  Sir,  to  look  beyond  the  Union,  to 
see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the  dark  recess  behind.  I  have 
not  coolly  weighed  the  chances  of  preserving  liberty  when  the 
bonds  that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken  asunder.  I  have 
not  accustomed  myself  to  hang  over  the  precipice  of  disunion,  to 
see  whether,  with  my  short  sight,  I  can  fathom  the  depth  of  the 
abyss  below ;  nor  could  I  regard  him  as  a  safe  counsellor  in  the 
affairs  of  this  government,  whose  thoughts  should  be  mainly 
bent  on  considering,  not  how  the  Union  may  be  best  pre- 
served, but  how  tolerable  might  be  the  condition  of  the  people 
when  it  should  be  broken  up  and  destroyed.  While  the  Union 
lasts,  we  have  high,  exciting,  gratifying  prospects  spread  out  be- 
fore us,  for  us  and  our  children.  Beyond  that  I  seek  not  to 
penetrate  the  veil.  God  grant  that  in  my  day,  at  least,  that 
curtain  may  not  rise!  God  grant  that  on  my  vision  never , may 
be  opened  what  lies  behind !  When  my  eyes  shall  be  turned  to 
behold  for  the  last  time  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I  not  see  him 
shining  on  the  broken  and  dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glo- 
rious Union ;  on  States  dissevered,  discordant,  belligerent ;  on  a 
land  rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in  fraternal 
blood!  Let  their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance  rather  be- 
hold the  gorgeous  ensign  of  the  republic,  now  known  and 
honored  throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced,  its  arms 
and  trophies  streaming  in  their  original  lustre,  not  a  stripe 
erased  or  polluted,  nor  a  single  star  obscured,  bearing  for  its 
motto,  no  such  miserable  interrogatory  as  "  What  is  all  this 
worth  ?  "  nor  those  other  words  of  delusion  and  folly,  "  Liberty 
first  and  Union  afterwards  " ;  but  everywhere,  spread  all  over  in 
characters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they 
float  over  the  sea  and  over  the  land,  and  in  every  wind  under 
the  whole  heavens,  that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every  true 
American  heart, —  Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  for  ever,  one 
an  i  inseparable! 


LAST  REMARKS  ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION; 


MR.  HAYNE  having  rejoined  to  Mr.  Webster,  especially  on  the  consti- 
tutional question,  Mr.  Webster  rose,  and,  in  conclusion,  said  :  — 

A  FEW  words,  Mr.  President,  on  this  constitutional  argument, 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  labored  to  reconstruct. 

His  argument  consists  of  two  propositions  and  an  inference. 
His  propositions  are, — 

1.  That  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  States. 

2.  That  a  compact  between  two,  with  authority  reserved  to 
one  to  interpret  its  terms,  would  be  a  surrender  to  that  one  of 
all  power  whatever. 

3.  Therefore,  (such  is  his  inference,)  the  general  government 
does  not  possess  the  authority  to  construe  its  own  powers. 

Now,  Sir,  who  does  not  see,  without  the  aid  of  exposition  or 
detection,  the  utter  confusion  of  ideas  involved  in  this  so  elab- 
orate and  systematic  argument. 

The  Constitution,  it  is  said,  is  a  compact  between  States ;  the 
States,  then,  and  the  States  only,  are  parties  to  the  compact. 
How  comes  the  general  government  itself  a  party  ?  Upon  the 
honorable  gentleman's  hypothesis,  the  general  government  is  the 
result  of  the  compact,  the  creature  of  the  compact,  not  one  of 
the  parties  to  it.  Yet  the  argument,  as  the  gentleman  has  now 
stated  it,  makes  the  government  itself  one  of  its  own  creators. 
It  makes  it  a  party  to  that  compact  to  which  it  owes  its  own 
existence. 

For  the  purpose  of  erecting  the  Constitution  on  the  basis  of 
a  compact,  the  gentleman  considers  the  States  as  parties  to  that 
compact;  but  as  soon  as  his  compact  is  made,  then  he  chooses 

*  Delivered  in  the  Senate,  on  the  27th  of  January,  1830. 


344  LAST  REMARKS  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION. 

to  consider  the  general  government,  which  is  the  offspring  of 
that  compact,  not  its  offspring,  but  one  of  its  parties ;  and  so, 
being  a  party,  without  the  power  of  judging  on  the  terms  of 
compact.  Pray,  Sir,  in  what  school  is  such  reasoning  as  this 
taught  ? 

If  the  whole  of  the  gentleman's  main  proposition  were  con- 
ceded to  him  ;  that  is  to  say,  if  I  admit,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 
ment, that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  States,  the  in- 
ferences which  he  draws  from  that  proposition  are  warranted 
by  no  just  reasoning.  If  the  Constitution  be  a  compact  between 
States,  still  that  Constitution,  or  that  compact,  has  established 
a  government,  with  certain  powers;  and  whether  it  be  one  of 
those  powers,  that  it  shall  construe  and  interpret  for  itself  the 
terms  of  the  compact,  in  doubtful  cases,  is  a  question  which  can 
only  be  decided  by  looking  to  the  compact,  and  inquiring  what 
provisions  it  contains  on  this  point.  Without  any  inconsistency 
with  natural  reason,  the  government  even  thus  created  might 
be  trusted  with  this  power  of  construction.  The  extent  of  its 
powers,  therefore,  must  still  be  sought  for  in  the  instrument 
itself. 

If  the  old  Confederation  had  contained  a  clause,  declaring  that 
resolutions  of  the  Congress  should  be  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  any  State  law  or  constitution  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing, and  that  a  committee  of  Congress,  or  any  other  body 
created  by  it,  should  possess  judicial  powers,  extending  to  all 
cases  arising  under  resolutions  of  Congress,  then  the  power  of 
ultimate  decision  would  have  been  vested  in  Congress  under 
the  confederation,  although  that  confederation  was  a  compact 
between  States ;  and  for  this  plain  reason ;  that  it  would  have 
been  competent  to  the  States,  who  alone  were  parties  to  the 
compact,  to  agree  who  should  decide  in  cases  of  dispute  arising 
on  the  construction  of  the  compact. 

For  the  same  reason,  Sir,  if  I  were  now  to  concede  to  the 
gentleman  his  principal  proposition,  namely,  that  the  Constitu- 
tion is  a  compact  between  States,  the  question  would  still  be, 
What  provision  is  made,  in  this  compact,  to  settle  points  of  dis- 
puted construction,  or  contested  power,  that  shall  come  into 
controversy?  And  this  question  would  still  be  answered,  and 
conclusively  answered,  by  the  Constitution  itself. 

While  the  gentleman  is  contending  against  construction,  he 


LAST   REMARKS  ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  345 

himself  is  setting  up  the  most  loose  and  dangerous  construc- 
tion. The  Constitution  declares,  that  the  laws  of  Congress 
passed  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land.  No  construction  is  necessary  here.  It  declares, 
also,  with  equal  plainness  and  precision,  that  the  judicial  power 
of  the.  United  Slates  shall  extend  to  every  case  arising-  under  the 
laws  of  Congress.  This  needs  no  construction.  Here  is  a  law, 
then,  which  is  declared  to  be  supreme ;  and  here  is  a  power  es- 
tablished, which  is  to  interpret  that  law.  Now,  Sir,  how  has 
the  gentleman  met  this?  Suppose  the  Constitution  to  be  a 
compact,  yet  here  are  its  terms;  and  how  does  the  gentleman  get 
rid  of  them  ?  He  cannot  argue  the  seal  off  the  bond,  nor  the 
words  out  of  the  instrument.  Here  they  are ;  what  answer  does 
he  give  to  them  ?  None  in  the  world,  Sir,  except,  that  the  effect 
of  this  would  be  to  place  the  States  in  a  condition  of  inferiority ; 
and  that  it  results  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  there  being  no 
superior,  that  the  parties  must  be  their  own  judges !  Thus 
closely  and  cogently  does  the  honorable  gentleman  reason  on 
the  words  of  the  Constitution.  The  gentleman  says,  if  there 
be  such  a  power  of  final  decision  in  the  general  government,  he 
asks  for  the  grant  of  that  power.  Well,  Sir,  I  show  him  the 
grant.  I  turn  him  to  the  very  words.  I  show  him  that  the 
laws  of  Congress  are  made  supreme;  and  that  the  judicial 
power  extends,  by  express  words,  to  the  interpretation  of  these 
laws.  Instead  of  answering  this,  he  retreats  into  the  general 
reflection,  that  it  must  result  from  the  nature  of  things^  that  the 
States,  being  parties,  must  judge  for  themselves. 

I  have  admitted,  that,  if  the  Constitution  were  to  be  con- 
sidered as  the  creature  of  the  State  governments,  it  might  be 
modified,  interpreted,  or  construed  according  to  their  pleasure. 
But,  even  in  that  case,  it  would  be  necessary  that  they  should 
agree.  One  alone  could  not  interpret  it  conclusively ;  one  alone 
could  not  construe  it;  one  alone  could  not  modify  it.  Yet 
the  gentleman's  doctrine  is,  that  Carolina  alone  may  construe 
and  interpret  that  compact  which  equally  binds  all,  and  gives 
equal  rights  to  all. 

So,  then,  Sir,  even  supposing  the  Constitution  to  be  a  com 
pact  between  the  States,  the  gentleman's  doctrine,  neverthe 
less,  is  not  maintainable ;  because,  first,  the  general  government 
is  not  a  party  to  that  compact,  but  a  government  established 


346  LAST  RLMARKS  ON   FOOT'S  RESOLUTION. 

by  it,  and  vested  by  it  with  the  powers  of  trying  and  decid- 
ing doubtful  questions;  and  secondly,  because,  if  the  Consti- 
tution be  regarded  as  a  compact,  not  one  State  only,  but  all 
the  States,  are  parties  to  that  compact,  and  one  can  have  no 
right  to  fix  upon  it  her  own  peculiar  construction. 

So  much,  Sir,  for  the  argument,  even  if  the  premises  of  the 
gentleman  were  granted,  or  could  be  proved.  But,  Sir,  the 
gentleman  has  failed  to  maintain  his  leading  proposition.  He 
has  not  shown,  it  cannot  be  shown,  that  the  Constitution  is  a 
compact  between  State  governments.  The  Constitution  itself, 
in  its  very  front,  refutes  that  idea ;  it  declares  that  it  is  ordained 
and  established  by  the  people  of  the  United  States.  So  far  from 
saying  that  it  is  established  by  the  governments  of  the  several 
States,  it  does  not  even  say  that  it  is  established  by  the  peo- 
ple of  the  several  States ;  but  it  pronounces  that  it  is  estab- 
lished by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  the  aggregate. 
The  gentleman  says,  it  must  mean  no  more  than  the  people 
of  the  several  States.  Doubtless,  the  people  of  the  several 
States,  taken  collectively,  constitute  the  people  of  the  United 
States;  but  it  is  in  this,  their  collective  capacity,  it  is  as  ah1 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  that  they  establish  the  Con- 
stitution. So  they  declare ;  and  words  cannot  be  plainer  than 
the  words  used. 

When  the  gentleman  says  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  be- 
tween the  States,  he  uses  language  exactly  applicable  to  the  old 
Confederation.  He  speaks  as  if  he  were  in  Congress  before 
1789.  He  describes  fully  that  old  state  of  things  then  existing. 
The  Confederation  was,  in  strictness,  a  compact ;  the  States,  as 
States,  were  parties  to  it.  We  had  no  other  general  govern- 
ment. But  that  was  found  insufficient,  and  inadequate  to  the 
public  exigencies.  The  people  were  not  satisfied  with  it,  and 
undertook  to  establish  a  better.  They  undertook  to  form  a  gen- 
eral government,  which  should  stand  on  a  new  basis;  not  a  con- 
federacy, not  a  league,  not  a  compact  between  States,  but  a 
Constitution;  a  popular  government,  founded  in  popular  election, 
directly  responsible  to  the  people  themselves,  and  divided  into 
branches  with  prescribed  limits  of  power,  and  prescribed  duties. 
They  ordained  such  a  government,  they  gave  it  the  name  of  a 
Constitution,  and  therein  they  established  a  distribution  of  pow- 
ers between  this,  their  general  government,  and  their  several 


LAST  REMARKS  ON  FOOTS  RESOLUTION.  347 

State  governments.  When  they  shall  becpme  dissatisfied  with 
this  distribution,  they  can  alter  it.  Their  own  power  over  their 
own  instrument  remains.  But  until  they  shall  alter  it,  it  must 
stand  as  their  will,  and  is  equally  binding  on  the  general  gov- 
ernment and  on  the  States. 

The  gentleman,  Sir,  finds  analogy  where  I  see  none.  He 
likens  it  to  the  case  of  a  treaty,  in  which,  there  being  no  com- 
mon superior,  each  party  must  interpret  for  itself,  under  its  own 
obligation  of  good  faith.  But  this  is  not  a  treaty,  but  a  con- 
stitution of  government,  with  powers  to  execute  itself,  and  fulfil 
its  duties. 

I  admit,  Sir,  that  this  government  is  a  government  of  checks 
and  balances ;  that  is,  the  House  of  Representatives  is  a  check 
on  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  is  a  check  on  the  House,  and  the 
President  a  check  on  both.  But  I  cannot  comprehend  him, 
or,  if  I  do,  I  totally  differ  from  him,  when  he  applies  the  notion 
of  checks  and  balances  to  the  interference  of  different  govern- 
ments. He  argues,  that,  if  we  transgress  our  constitutional  lim- 
its, each  State,  as  a  State,  has  a  right  to  check  us.  Does  he 
admit  the  converse  of  the  proposition,  that  we  have  a  right  to 
check  the  States?  The  gentleman's  doctrines  would  give  us  a 
strange  jumble  of  authorities  and  powers,  instead  of  govern- 
ments of  separate  and  defined  powers.  It  is  the  part  of  wisdom, 
I  think,  to  avoid  this ;  and  to  keep  the  general  government  and 
the  State  government  each  in  its  proper  sphere,  avoiding  as 
carefully  as  possible  every  kind  of  interference. 

Finally,  Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  the  States 
will  only  interfere,  by  their  power,  to  preserve  the  Constitution. 
They  will  not  destroy  it,  they  will  not  impair  it ;  they  will  only 
save,  they  will  only  preserve,  they  will  only  strengthen  it !  Ah ! 
Sir,  this  is  but  the  old  story.  All  regulated  governments,  all 
free  governments,  have  been  broken  by  similar  disinterested  and 
well  disposed  interference.  It  is  the  common  pretence.  But  I 
take  leave  of  the  subject. 


348  NOTES  TO  THE  SECOND  SPEECH 


NOTES. 


NOTE  A.     Page  282. 

Extract  from  the  Journal  of  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation. 

Wednesday,  21st  February,  1787. 

CONGRESS  assembled :  Present,  as  before.  The  report  of  a  grand 
committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Dane,  Mr.  Varnum,  Mr.  S.  M.  Mitchell, 
Mr.  Smith,  Mr.  Cadwallader,  Mr.  Irvine,  Mr.  N.  Mitchell,  Mr.  Forrest, 
Mr.  Grayson,  Mr.  Blount,  Mr.  Bull,  and  Mr.  Few,  to  whom  was  referred 
a  letter  of  14th  September,  1786,  from  J.  Dickinson,  written  at  the  re- 
quest of  commissioners  from  the  States  of  Virginia,  Delaware,  Pennsyl- 
vania, New  Jersey,  and  New  York,  assembled  at  the  city  of  Annapolis, 
together  with  a  copy  of  the  report  of  said  commissioners  to  the  legisla- 
tures of  the  States  by  whom  they  were  appointed,  being  an  order  of  the 
day,  was  called  up,  and  which  is  contained  in  the  following  resolution, 
viz. :  — 

"  Congress  having  had  under  consideration  the  letter  of  John  Dickin- 
son, Esq.,  chairman  of  the  commissioners  who  assembled  at  Annapolis 
during  the  last  year,  also  the  proceedings  of  the  said  commissioners, 
and  entirely  coinciding  with  them  as  to  the  inefficiency  of  the  federal 
government,  and  the  necessity  of  devising  such  further  provisions  as 
shall  render  the  same  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Union,  do 
strongly  recommend  to  the  different  legislatures  to  send  forward  dele- 
gates to  meet  the  proposed  Convention,  on  the  second  Monday  in  May 
next,  at  the  city  of  Philadelphia." 


NOTE  B.     Page  298. 

Extract  from  Mr.  Calhoun's  Speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
April,  1816,  on  Mr.  Randolphs  Motion  to  strike  out  the  Minimum 
Valuation  on  Cotton  Goods. 

"  THE  debate,  heretofore,  on  this  subject,  has  been  on  the  degree  of 
protection  which  ought  to  be  afforded  to  our  cotton  and  woollen  manu- 


ON  FOOT'S    RESOLUTION.  349 

factures ;  all  professing  to  be  friendly  to  those  infant  establishments, 
and  to  be  willing  to  extend  to  them  adequate  encouragement.  The 
present  motion  assumes  a  new  aspect.  It  is  introduced,  professedly,  on 
the  ground  that  manufactures  ought  not  to  receive  any  encouragement ; 
and  will,  in  its  operation,  leave  our  cotton  establishments  exposed  to  the 
competition  of  the  cotton  goods  of  the  East  Indies,  which,  it  is  acknowl- 
edged on  all  sides,  they  are  not  capable  of  meeting  with  success,  without 
the  proviso  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  by  the  motion  now  under  discus- 
sion. Till  the  debate  assumed  this  new  form,  he  (Mr.  Calhoun)  deter- 
mined to  be  silent ;  participating,  as  he  largely  did,  in  that  general  anxie- 
ty which  is  felt,  after  so  long  and  laborious  a  session,  to  return  to  the 
bosom  of  our  families.  But  on  a  subject  of  such  vital  importance, 
touching,  as  it  does,  the  security  and  permanent  prosperity  of  our 
country,  he  hoped  that  the  House  would  indulge  him  in  a  few  observa- 
tions. 

"  To  give  perfection  to  this  state  of  things,  it  will  be  necessary  to  add, 
as  soon  as  possible,  a  system  of  internal  improvements,  and,  at  least, 
such  an  extension  of  our  navy  as  will  prevent  the  cutting  off  our  coast- 
ing trade.  The  advantage  of  each  is  so  striking  as  not  to  require  illus- 
tration, especially  after  the  experience  of  the  late  war. 

"  He  firmly  believed  that  the  countiy  is  prepared,  even  to  maturity, 
for  the  introduction  of  manufactures.  We  have  abundance  of  resour- 
ces, and  things  naturally  tend,  at  this  moment,  in  that  direction.  A 
prosperous  commerce  has  poured  an  immense  amount  of  commercial 
capital  into  this  country.  This  capital  has  till  lately  found  occupation 
in  commerce  ;  but  that  state  of  the  world  which  transferred  it  to  this 
country  and  gave  it  active  employment,  has  passed  away,  never  to  re- 
turn. Where  shall  we  now  find  full  employment  for  our  prodigious 
amount  of  tonnage  ?  '  Where,  markets  for  the  numerous  and  abundant 
products  of  our  country?  This  great  body  of  active  capital,  which, 
for  the  moment,  has  found  sufficient  employment  in  supplying  our  mar- 
kets, exhausted  by  the  war  and  measures  preceding  it,  must  find  a 
new  direction ;  it  will  not  be  idle.  What  channel  can  it  take  but  that 
of  manufactures  ?  This,  if  things  continue  as  they  are,  will  be  its 
direction.  It  will  introduce  an  era  in  our  affairs,  in  many  respects 
highly  advantageous,  and  which  ought  to  be  countenanced  by  the  gov- 
ernment. 

"  Besides,  we  have  already  surmounted  the  greatest  difficulty  that  has 
ever  been  found  in  undertakings  of  this  kind.  The  cotton  and  woollen 
manufactures  are  not  to  be  introduced,  —  they  are  already  introduced 
to  a  great  extent ;  freeing  us  entirely  from  the  hazards,  and,  in  a  great 
measure,  the  sacrifices,  experienced  in  giving  the  capital  of  the  country 
a  new  direction.  The  restiictive  measures,  and  the  war,  though  not  in- 

VOL.  in.  30 


350  NOTES  TO  THE  SECOND  SPEECH 

tended  for  that  purpose,  have,  by  the  necessary  operation  of  things 
turned  a  large  amount  of  capital  to  this  new  branch  of  industry.  He 
had  often  heard  it  said,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  that  this  effect 
alone  would  indemnify  the  country  for  all  its  losses.  So  high  was  this 
tone  of  feeling  when  the  want  of  these  establishments  was  practically 
felt,  that  he  remembered,  during  the  war,  when  some  question  was 
agitated  respecting  the  introduction  of  foreign  goods,  that  many  then 
opposed  it  on  the  ground  of  injuring  our  manufactures.  He  then  said, 
that  war  alone  furnished  sufficient  stimulus,  and  perhaps  too  much,  as  it 
would  make  their  growth  unnaturally  rapid  ;  but  that,  on  the  return  of 
peace,  it  would  then  be  time  to  show  our  affection  for  them.  He  at 
that  time  did  not  expect  an  apathy  and  aversion  to  the  extent  which  is 
now  seen. 

"  But  it  will  no  doubt  be  said,  if  they  are  so  far  established,  and  if  the 
situation  of  the  country  is  so  favorable  to  their  growth,  where  is  the  ne- 
cessity of  affording  them  protection  ?  It  is  to  put  them  beyond  the 
reach  of  contingency. 

"  It  has  been  further  asserted,  that  manufactures  are  the  fruitful  cause 
of  pauperism  ;  and  England  has  been  referred  to  as  furnishing  conclu- 
sive evidence  of  its  truth.  For  his  part,  he  could  perceive  no  such  ten- 
dency in  them,  but  the  exact  contrary,  as  they  furnished  new  stimulus 
and  means  of  subsistence  to  the  laboring  classes  of  the  community. 
We  ought  not  to  look  at  the  cotton  and  woollen  establishments  of  Great 
Britain  for  the  prodigious  numbers  of  poor  with  which  her  population 
was  disgraced  ;  causes  much  more  efficient  exist.  Her  poor  laws,  and 
statutes  regulating  the  prices  of  labor,  with  taxes,  were  the  real  causes. 
But  if  it  must  be  so,  if  the  mere  fact  that  England  manufactured  more 
than  any  other  country,  explained  the  cause  of  her  having  more  beg- 
gars, it  is  just  as  reasonable  to  refer  to  the  same  cause  her  courage, 
spirit,  and  all  her  masculine  virtues,  in  which  she  excels  all  other  na- 
tions, with  a  single  exception  ;  he  meant  our  own,  in  which  we  might, 
without  vanity,  challenge  a  preeminence. 

"  Another  objection  had  been,  which  he  must  acknowledge  was  better 
founded,  that  capital  employed  in  manufacturing  produced  a  greater 
dependence  on  the  part  of  the  employed,  than  in  commerce,  navigation, 
or  agriculture.  It  is  certainly  an  evil,  and  to  be  regretted,  but  he  did 
not  think  it  a  decisive  objection  to  the  system ;  especially  when  it  had 
incidental  political  advantages,  which,  in  his  opinion,  more  than  coun- 
terpoised it.  It  produced  an  interest  strictly  American,  as  much  so  as 
agriculture,  in  which  it  had  the  decided  advantage  of  commerce  or  nav- 
igation. The  country  will  from  this  derive  much  advantage. 

"  Again :  it  is  calculated  to  bind  together  more  closely  our  widely 
spread  republic.  It  will  greatly  increase  our  mutual  dependence  and 


ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  351 

intercourse  ;  and  will,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  excite  an  increased 
attention  to  internal  improvements,  a  subject  every  way  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  ultimate  attainment  of  national  strength,  and  the  per- 
fection of  our  political  institutions." 

Extract  from  the  Speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  April,  1816,  on  the  Direct 

Tax. 

In  regard  to  the  question,  how  far  manufactures  ought  to  be  fostered, 
Mr.  Calhoun  said,  "  It  was  the  duty  of  this  country,  as  a  means  of 
defence,  to  encourage  the  domestic  industry  of  the  country,  more  espe- 
cially that  part  of  it  which  provides  the  necessary  materials  for  clothing 
and  defence.  Let  us  look  to  the  nature  of  the  war  most  likely  to  occur. 
England  is  in  the  possession  of  the  ocean.  No  man,  however  sanguine, 
can  believe  that  we  can  deprive  her  soon  of  her  predominance  there. 
That  control  deprives  us  of  the  means  of  keeping  our  army  and  navy 
cheaply  clad.  The  question  relating  to  manufactures  must  not  depend 
on  the  abstract  principle,  that  industry,  left  to  pursue  its  own  course, 
will  find  in  its  own  interest  all  the  encouragement  that  is  necessary.  I 
lay  the  claims  of  the  manufacturers  entirely  out  of  view,"  said  Mr.  Cal- 
houn ;  "  but,  on  general  principles,  without  regard  to  their  interest,  a 
certain  encouragement  should  be  extended,  at  least,  to  our  woollen  and 
c6tton  manufactures. 

"  This  nation,"  Mr.  Calhoun  said,  "  was  rapidly  changing  the  charac- 
ter of  its  industry.  When  a  nation  is  agricultural,  depending  for  supply 
on  foreign  markets,  its  people  may  be  taxed  through  its  imports  almost 
{o  the  amount  of  its  capacity.  The  nation  was,  however,  rapidly  be- 
coming, to  a  considerable  extent,  a  manufacturing  nation." 

To  the  quotations  from  the  speeches  and  proceedings  of  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  South  Carolina  in  Congress,  during  Mr.  Monroe's  adminis- 
tration, may  be  added  the  following  extract  from  Mr.  Calhoun's  report 
on  roads  and  canals,  submitted  to  Congress  on  the  7th  of  January,  1819, 
from  the  Department  of  War  :  — 

"  A  judicious  system  of  roads  and  canals,  constructed  for  the  conven- 
ience of  commerce  and  the  transportation  of  the  mail  only,  without  any 
reference  to  military  operations,  is  itself  among  the  most  efficient  means 
for  ihe  '  more  complete  defence  of  the  Uniled  States.'  Without  advert- 
ing to  the  fact,  that  the  roads  and  canals  which  such  a  system  would  re- 
quire are,  with  few  exceptions,  precisely  those  which  would  be  required 
for  the  operations  of  war;  such  a  system,  by  consolidating  our  Union 
and  increasing  our  wealth  and  fiscal  capacity,  would  add  greatly  to  our 
resources  in  war.  It  is  in  a  state  of  war,  when  a  nation  is  compelled  to 
put  all  its  resources,  in  men,  money,  skill,  and  devotion  to  country,  into 


352  NOTES  TO  THE   SECOND   SPEECH 

requisition,  that  its  government  realizes  in  its  security  the  beneficial 
effects  from  a  people  made  prosperous  and  happy  by  a  wise  direction 
of  its  resources  in  peace. 

"  Should  Congress  think  proper  to  commence  a  system  of  roads  and 
canals  for  the  '  more  complete  defence  of  the  United  States,'  the  dis- 
bursements of  the  sum  appropriated  for  the  purpose  might  be  made  by 
the  Department  of  War,  under  the  direction  of  the  President.  Where 
incorporated  companies  are  already  formed,  or  the  road  or  canal  com- 
menced, under  the  superintendence  of  a  State,  it  perhaps  would  be  ad- 
visable to  direct  a  subscription  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  on  such 
terms  and  conditions  as  might  be  thought  proper." 


MOTE   C.     Page  339. 

THE  following  resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  bear  so  per- 
tinently and  so  strongly  on  this  point  of  the  debate,  that  they  are  thought 
worthy  of  being  inserted  in  a  note,  especially  as  other  resolutions  of  the 
same  body  are  referred  to  in  the  discussion.  It  will  be  observed  that 
these  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  in  each  house. 

VIRGINIA  LEGISLATURE. 

Extract  from  the  Message  of  Governor  Tyler,  December  4,  1809. 
"  A  proposition  from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  is  herewith  submitted, 
with  Governor  Snyder's  letter  accompanying  the  same,  in  which  is  sug- 
gested the  propriety  of  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States-, 
so  as  to  prevent  collision  between  the  government  of  the  Union  and  the 
State  governments." 

HOUSE  OF  DELEGATES,  Friday,  December  15,  1809. 
On  motion,  Ordered,  That  so  much  of  the  Governor's  communication 
as  relates  to  the  communication  from  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  on 
the  subject  of  an  amendment  proposed  by  the  Legislature  of  that  State 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  be  referred  to  Messrs.  Peyton, 
Otey,  Cabell,  Walker,  Madison,  Holt,  Newton,  Parker,  Stevenson,  Ran- 
dolph (of  Amelia),  Cocke,  Wyatt,  and  Ritchie.  —  Journal,  p.  25. 

Thursday,  January  11,  1810. 

Mr.  Peyton,  from  the  committee  to  whom  was  referred  that  part  of 
the  Governor's  communication  which  relates  to  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  made  the  following  report :  — 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  communication  of  the  Gov 


ON  FOOT'S   RESOLUTION.  353 

ernor  of  Pennsylvania,  covering  certain  resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of 
that  State,  proposing  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  by  the  appointment  of  an  impartial  tribunal  to  decide  disputes 
between  the  States  and  Federal  Judiciary,  have  had  the  same  under  their 
consideration,  and  are  of  opinion  that  a  tribunal  is  already  provided  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ;  to  wit,  the  Supreme  Court,  more 
eminently  qualified,  from  their  habits  and  duties,  from  the  mode  of  their 
selection,  and  from  the  tenure  of  their  offices,  to  decide  the  disputes 
aforesaid  in  an  enlightened  and  impartial  manner,  than  any  other  tribu- 
nal which  could  be  created. 

The  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  selected  from  those  in  the 
United  States  who  are  most  celebrated  for  virtue  and  legal  learning,  not 
at  the  will  of  a  single  individual,  but  by  the  concurrent  wishes  of  the 
President  and  Senate  of  the  United  States  ;  they  will,  therefore,  have 
no  local  prejudices  and  partialities.  The  duties  they  have  to  perform 
lead  them,  necessarily,  to  the  most  enlarged  and  accurate  acquaintance 
with  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  and  State  courts  together,  and  with 
the  admirable  symmetry  of  our  government.  The  tenure  of  their  offi- 
ces enables  them  to  pronounce  the  sound  and  correct  opinions  they  may 
have  formed,  without  fear,  favor,  or  partiality. 

The  amendment  to  the  Constitution  proposed  by  Pennsylvania  seems 
to  be  founded  upon  the  idea  that  the  Federal  Judiciary  will,  from  a  lust 
of  power,  enlarge  their  jurisdiction  to  the  total  annihilation  of  the  juris- 
diction of  the  State  courts ;  that  they  will  exercise  their  will,  instead  of 
the  law  and  the  Constitution. 

This  argument,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  would  operate  more  strongly 
against  the  tribunal  proposed  to  be  created,  which  promises  so  little 
than  against  the  Supreme  Court,  which,  for  the  reasons  given  before 
have  every  thing  connected  with  their  appointment  calculated  to  insure 
confidence.  What  security  have  we,  were  the  proposed  amendment 
adopted,  that  this  tribunal  would  not  substitute  their  will  and  their  pleas- 
ure in  place  of  the  law  ?  The  judiciary  are  the  weakest  of  the  three 
departments  of  government,  and  least  dangerous  to  the  political  rights 
of  the  Constitution  ;  they  hold  neither  the  purse  nor  the  sword ;  and, 
even  to  enforce  their  own  judgments  and  decisions,  must  ultimately  de- 
pend upon  the  executive  arm.  Should  the  Federal  Judiciary,  however, 
unmindful  of  their  weakness,  unmindful  of  the  duty  which  they  owe  to 
themselves  and  their  country,  become  corrupt,  and  transcend  the  limits 
of  their  jurisdiction,  would  the  proposed  amendment  oppose  even  a  prob- 
able barrier  in  such  an  improbable  state  of  things  ? 

The  creation  of  a  tribunal  such  as  is  proposed  by  Pennsylvania,  so 
far  as  we  are  able  to  form  an  idea  of  it,  from  the  description  given  in 
the  resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  would,  in  the  opinion  of 
30* 


-354  NOTES  TO  THE  SECOND  SPEECH 

your  committee,  tend  rather  to  invite  than  to  prevent  collisions  between 
the  Federal  and  State  courts.  It  might  also  become,  in  process  of  time, 
a  serious  and  dangerous  embarrassment  to  the  operations  of  the  general 
government. 

Resolved,  therefore,  That  the  Legislature  of  this  State  do  disapprove 
of  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  proposed  by 
the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania. 

Resolved,  also,  That  his  Excellency,  the  Governor,  be,  and  he  is 
hereby,  requested  to  transmit  forthwith  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  pream- 
ble and  resolutions  to  each  of  the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  this 
State  in  Congress,  and  to  the  executive  of  the  several  States  in  the 
Union,  with  a  request  that  the  same  be  laid  before  the  legislatures 
thereof. 

The  said  resolutions,  being  read  a  second  time,  were,  on  motion,  or- 
dered to  be  referred  to  a  committee  of  the  whole  house  on  the  state  of 
the  Commonwealth. 

Tuesday,  January  23,  1810. 

The  House,  according  to  the  order  of  the  day,  resolved  itself  into  a 
committee  of  the  whole  house  on  the  state  of  the  Commonwealth,  and, 
after  some  time  spent  therein,  Mr.  Speaker  resumed  the  chair,  and  Mr. 
Stanard  of  Spottsylvania  reported  that  the  committee  had,  according 
to  order,  had  under  consideration  the  preamble  and  resolutions  of  the 
select  committee  to  whom  was  referred  that  part  of  the  Governor's 
communication  which  relates  to  the  amendment  proposed  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  by  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  had  gone 
through  with  the  same,  and  directed  him  to  report  them  to  the  house 
without  amendment ;  which  he  handed  in  at  the  clerk's  table. 

And  the  question  being  put  on  agreeing  to  the  said  preamble  and  res- 
olutions, (hey  were  agreed  to  by  the  House  unanimously. 

Ordered,  That  the  clerk  carry  the  said  preamble  and  resolutions  to 
the  Senate,  and  desire  their  concurrence. 

IN  SENATE,  Wednesday,  January  24,  1810. 

The  preamble  and  resolutions  on  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  proposed  by  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  by 
the  appointment  of  an  impartial  tribunal  to  decide  disputes  between  the 
States  and  Federal  Judiciary,  being  also  delivered  in  and  twice  read,  on 
motion,  were  ordered  to  be  committed  to  Messrs.  Nelson,  Currie,  Camp- 
bell, Upshur,  and  Wolfe. 

Friday,  January  26,  1810. 
Mr.  Nelson  reported,  from  the  committee  to  whom  was  committed  the 


ON  FOOT'S  RESOLUTION.  355 

preamble  and  resolutions  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Pennsylvania,  &c.,  that  the  committee  had,  according  to  order, 
taken  the  said  preamble,  &.C.,  under  their  consideration,  and  directed 
him  to  report  them  without  any  amendment. 

And  on  the  question  being  put  thereupon,  the  same  was  agreed  to 
unanimously. 


THE  NOMINATION  OF  ME.  VAN  BUREN  AS 
MINISTER  TO  ENGLAND.* 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  as  it  is  highly  probable  that  our  proceedings 
on  this  nomination  will  be  published,  I  deem  it  proper  to  state 
shortly  the  considerations  which  have  influenced  my  opinion, 
and  will  decide  my  vote. 

I  regard  this  as  a  very  important  and  delicate  question.  It  is 
full  of  responsibility ;  and  I  feel  the  whole  force  of  that  respon- 
sibility. While  I  have  been  in  the  Senate,  I  have  opposed  no 
nomination  of  the  President,  except  for  cause;  and  I  have  at 
ah1  times  thought  that  such  cause  should  be  plain  and  sufficient; 
that  it  should  be  real  and  substantial,  not  unfounded  or  fanciful. 

I  have  never  desired,  and  do  not  now  desire,  to  encroach  in 
the  slightest  degree  on  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  chief 
magistrate  of  the  nation.  I  have  heretofore  gone  far,  very  far, 
in  assenting  to  nominations  which  have  been  submitted  to  us. 
I  voted  for  the  appointment  of  all  the  gentlemen  who  composed 
the  first  cabinet;  I  have  opposed  no  nomination  of  a  foreign 
minister ;  and  I  have  not  opposed  the  nominations  recently  be- 
fore us,  for  the  reorganization  of  the  administration.  I  have 
always  been  especially  anxious,  that,  in  ah1  matters  relating  to 
our  intercourse  with  other  nations,  the  utmost  harmony,  the 
greatest  unity  of  purpose,  should  exist  between  the  President 
and  the  Senate.  I  know  how  much  of  usefulness  to  the  public 
service  such  harmony  and  union  are  calculated  to  produce. 

I  am  now  fully  aware,  Sir,  that  it  is  a  serious,  a  very  serious 
matter,  to  vote  against  the  confirmation  of  a  minister  to  a  for- 
eign court,  who  has  already  gone  abroad,  and  has  been  received 

*  Remarks  made  in  Secret  Session  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
24th  of  January,  1832,  on  the  Nomination  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  as  Ministe-  to 
Great  Britain. 


THE  NOMINATION  OF  MR.   VAN  BUREN.  357 

and  accredited  by  the  government  to  which  he  is  sent.  I  am 
aware  that  the  rejection  of  this  nomination,  and  the  necessary 
recall  of  the  minister,  will  be  regarded  by  foreign  states,  at  the 
first  blush,  as  not  in  the  highest  degree  favorable  to  the  char- 
acter of  our  government.  I  know,  moreover,  to  what  injurious 
reflections  one  may  subject  himself,  especially  in  times  of  party 
excitement,  by  giving  a  negative  vote  on  such  a  nomination. 
Bat,  after  all,  I  am  placed  here  to  discharge  a  duty.  I  am  not 
to  go  through  a  formality ;  I  am  to  perform  a  substantial  and 
responsible  duty.  I  am  to  advise  the  President  in  matters  of 
appointment  This  is  my  constitutional  obligation ;  and  I  shall 
perform  it  conscientiously  and  fearlessly.  I  am  bound  to  say, 
then,  Sir,  that,  for  one,  I  do  not  advise  nor  consent  to  this  nomi- 
nation. I  do  not  think  it  a  fit  and  proper  nomination ;  and  my 
reasons  are  found  in  the  letter  of  instructions  written  by  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  on  the  20th  of  July,  1829,  to  Mr.  McLane,  then 
going  to  the  court  of  England,  as  American  Minister.  I  think 
these  instructions  derogatory,  in  a  high  degree,  to  the  character 
and  honor  of  the  country.  I  think  they  show  a  manifest  dispo- 
sition in  the  writer  of  them  to  establish  a  distinction  between 
his  country  and  his  party ;  to  place  that  party  above  the  coun- 
try ;  to  make  interest  at  a  foreign  court  for  that  party  rather 
than  for  the  country ;  to  persuade  the  English  ministry,  and  the 
English  monarch,  that  they  have  an  interest  in  maintaining  in 
the  United  States  the  ascendency  of  the  party  to  which  the 
writer  belongs.  Thinking  thus  of  the  purpose  and  object  of 
these  instructions,  I  cannot  be  of  opinion  that  their  author  is  a 
proper  representative  of  the  United  States  at  that  court.  There- 
fore it  is,  that  I  propose  to  vote  against  his  nomination.  It  is 
the  first  time,  I  believe,  in  modern  diplomacy,  it  is  certainly  the 
first  time  in  our  history,  in  which  a  minister  to  a  foreign  court 
has  sought  to  make  favor  for  one  party  at  home  against  another, 
or  has  stooped  from  being  the  representative  of  the  whole  coun- 
try to  be  the  representative  of  a  party.  And  as  this  is  the  first 
instance  in  our  history  of  any  such  transaction,  so  I  intend  to 
do  all  in  my  power  to  make  it  the  last.  For  one,  I  set  my  mark 
of  disapprobation  upon  it ;  I  contribute  my  voice  and  my  vote 
to  make  it  a  negative  example,  to  be  shunned  and  avoided  by 
all  future  ministers  of  the  United  States.  If,  in  a  deliberate 
and  formal  letter  of  instructions,  admonitions  and  directions  are 


358  THE  NOMINATION  OF  MR.  VAN  BUREN 

given  to  a  minister,  and  repeated,  once  and  again,  to  urge  these 
mere  party  considerations  on  the  foreign  government,  to  what 
extent  is  it  probable  the  writer  himself  will  be  disposed  to  urge 
them,  in  his  thousand  opportunities  of  informal  intercourse  with 
the  agents  of  that  government? 

I  propose,  Sir,  to  refer  to  some  particular  parts  of  these  in- 
structions ;  but  before  I  do  that,  allow  me  to  state,  very  gener- 
ally, the  posture  of  the  subject  to  which  those  particulars  relate. 
That  subject  is  the  state  of  our  trade  with  the  British  West 
India  colonies.  •  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  now  to  go  minutely 
into  all  the  history  of  that  trade.  The  occasion  does  not  call  for 
it.  All  know,  that,  by  the  convention  of  1815,  a  reciprocity 
of  intercourse  was  established  between  us  ar.d  Great  Britain. 
The  ships  of  both  countries  were  allowed  to  pass  to  and  from 
each  other  respectively,  with  the  same  cargoes,  and  subject  to 
the  same  duties.  But  this  arrangement  did  not  extend  to  the 
British  West  Indies.  There  our  intercourse  was  cut  off.  »Vari- 
ous  discriminating  and  retaliatory  acts  were  passed  by  England 
and  by  the  United  States.  Eventually,  in  the  summer  of  1825, 
the  English  Parliament  passed  an  act,  offering  reciprocity,  so  far 
as  the  mere  carrying  trade  was  concerned,  to  all  nations  who 
might  choose,  within  one  year,  to  accept  that  offer. 

Mr.  Adams's  administration  did  not  accept  that  offer;  first, 
because  it  was  never  officially  communicated  to  it ;  secondly, 
because,  only  a  few  months  before,  a  negotiation  on  the  very 
same  subject  had  been  suspended,  with  an  understanding  that 
it  might  be  resumed ;  and,  thirdly,  because  it  was  very  desirable 
to  arrange  the  whole  matter,  if  possible,  by  treaty,  in  order  to 
secure,  if  we  could,  the  admission  of  our  products  into  the  Brit- 
ish islands  .for  consumption,  as  well  as  the  admission  of  our 
vessels.  This  object  had  been  earnestly  pursued  ever  since  the 
peace  of  1815.  It  was  insisted  on,  as  every  body  knows, 
through  the  whole  of  Mr.  Monroe's  administration.  He  would 
not  treat  at  all,  without  treating  of  this  object.  He  thought  the 
existing  state  of  things  better  than  any  arrangement  which, 
while  it  admitted  our  vessels  into  West  India  ports,  still  left  our 
productions  subject  to  such  duties  there,  that  they  could  not  be 
carried. 

Now,  Sir,  Mr.  Adams's  administration  was  not  the  first  to 
take  this  ground.  It  only  occupied  the  same  position  which  its 


AS  MINISTER   TO  ENGLAND.  359 

predecessor  had  taken.  It  saw  no  important  objects  to  be  gained 
by  changing  the  state  of  things,  unless  that  change  was  to 
admit  our  products  into  the  British  West  Indies  directly  from 
our  ports,  and  not  burdened  with  excessive  duties.  The  direct 
trade,  by  English  enactments  and  American  enactments,  had 
become  closed.  No  British  ship  came  here  from  the  British 
West  Indies.  No  American  ship  went  hence  to  those  places. 
A  circuitous  trade  took  place  through  the  islands  of  third  pow- 
ers ;  and  that  circuitous  trade  was,  in  many  respects,  not  disad- 


vantageous to  us. 


In  this  state  of  things,  Sir,  Mr.  McLane  was  sent  to  Eng- 
land; and  he  received  his  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of 
State.  In  these  instructions,  and  in  relation  to  this  subject  of 
the  colonial  trade,  are  found  the  sentiments  of  which  I  complain. 
What  are  they  ?  Let  us  examine  and  see. 

Mr.  Van  Buren  tells  Mr.  McLane,  "  The  opportunities  which 
you  have  derived  from  a  participation  in  our  public  counsels,  as 
well  as  other  sources  of  information,  will  enable  you  to  speak 
with  confidence  (as  far  as  you  may  deem  it  proper  and  useful 
so  to  do)  of  the  respective  parts  taken  by  those  to  whom  the 
administration  of  this  government  is  now  committed,  in  relation 
to  the  course  heretofore  pursued  upon  the  subject  of  the  colonial 
trade." 

Now,  this  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  saying,  "  You  will  be 
able  to  tell  the  British  minister,  \vhenever  you  think  proper,  that 
you,  and  I,  and  the  leading  persons  in  this  administration,  have 
opposed  the  course  heretofore  pursued  by  the  government,  and 
the  country,  on  the  subject  of  the  colonial  trade.  Be  sure  to  let 
him  know,  that,  on  that  subject,  we  have  held  with  England, 
and  not  with  our  own  government."  Now,  I  ask  you,  Sir.  if 
this  be  dignified  diplomacy.  Is  this  statesmanship  ?  Is  it 
patriotism,  or  is  it  mere  party  ?  Is  it  a  proof  of  a  high  regard  to 
the  honor  and  renown  of  the  whole  country,  or  is  it  evidence  of 
a  disposition  to  make  a  merit  of  belonging  to  one  of  its  political 
divisions  ? 

The  Secretary  proceeds :  "  Their  views  "  (that  is,  the  views  of 
the  present  administration)  "upon  that  point  have  been  submitted 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  counsels  by  which 
your  conduct  is  now  directed  are  the  result  of  the  judgment 
expressed  by  the  only  earthly  tribunal  to  which  the  late  admin- 
istration was  amenable  for  its  acts." 


360  THE   NOMINATION  OF   MR.   VAN   BUREN 

Now,  Sir,  in  the  first  place,  there  is  very  little  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  the  first  part  of  this  paragraph  is  true,  in  point  of  fact; 
I  mean  that  part  which  intimates  that  the  change  of  administra- 
tion was  brought  about  by  public  disapprobation  of  Mr.  Adams's 
conduct  respecting  the  subject  of  the  colonial  trade.  Possibly 
so  much  was  then  said  on  a  subject  which  so  few  understood, 
that  some  degree  of  impression  may  have  been  produced  by  it. 
But  be  assured,  Sir,  another  cause  will  be  found,  by  future  his- 
torians, for  this  change ;  and  that  cause  will  be  the  popularity 
of  a  successful  soldier,  united  with  a  feeling,  made  to  be  con- 
siderably extensive,  that  the  preferences  of  the  people  in  his 
behalf  had  not  been  justly  regarded  on  a  previous  occasion. 
There  is,  Sir,  very  little  ground  to  say  that  "  the  only  tribunal  to 
which  the  late  administration  was  amenable  "  has  pronounced 
any  judgment  against  it  for  its  conduct  on  the  whole  subject  of 
the  colonial  trade. 

But,  however  this  may  be,  the  other  assertion  in  the  para- 
graph is  manifestly  quite  wide  of  the  facts.  Mr.  Adams's  ad- 
ministration did  not  bring  forward  this  claim.  I  have  stated, 
already,  that  it  had  been  a  subject  both  of  negotiation  and  leg- 
islation through  the  whole  eight  years  of  Mr.  Monroe's  admin- 
istration. This  the  Secretary  knew,  or  was  bound  to  know. 
Why,  then,  does  he  speak  of  it  as  set  up  by  the  late  admin- 
istration, and  afterwards  abandoned  by  them,  and  not  now 
revived  ? 

But  the  most  humiliating  part  of  the  whole  follows  :  —  "To 
set  up  the  acts  of  the  late  administration  as  the  cause  of  forfeit- 
ure of  privileges  which  would  otherwise  be  extended  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States,  would,  under  existing  circumstances, 
be  unjust  in  itself,  and  could  not  fail  to  excite  their  deepest  sen- 
sibility." 

So,  then,  Mr.  President,  we  are  reduced,  are  we,  to  the  poor 
condition,  that  we  see  a  minister  of  this  great  republic  instruct- 
ed to  argue,  or  to  intercede,  with  the  British  minister,  lest  he 
should  find  us  to  have  forfeited  our  privileges  ;  and  lest  these 
privileges  should  no  longer  be  extended  to  us!  And  we  have 
forfeited  those  privileges  by  our  misbehavior  in  choosing  rulers, 
who  thought  better  of  our  own  claim  than  of  the  British !  Why, 
Sir,  this  is  patiently  submitting  to  the  domineering  tone  of  the 
British  minister,  I  believe  Mr.  Huskisson — [Mr.  Clay  said,  "  No, 


AS   MINISTER   TO  ENGLAND.  3bJ 

Mr.  Canning."]  —  Mr.  Canning,  then,  Sir,  who  told  us  that  all 
our  trade  with  the  West  Indies  was  a  boon,  granted  to  us  by  the 
indulgence  of  England.  The  British  minister  calls  it  a  boon, 
and  our  minister  admits  it  as  a  privilege,  and  hopes  that  his 
Majesty  will  be  too  gracious  to  decide  that  we  have  forfeited  this 
privilege,  by  our  misbehavior  in  the  choice  of  our  rulers !  Sir, 
fcr  one,  I  reject  all  idea  of  holding  any  right  of  trade,  or  any 
ot'aer  rights,  as  a  privilege  or  a  boon  from  the  British  govern- 
ment, or  any  other  government. 

A:  the  conclusion  of  the  paragraph,  the  Secretary  says, 
"  Yon  cannot  press  this  view  of  the  subject  too  earnestly  upon 
the  consideration  of  the  British  ministry.  It  has  bearings  and 
relations  that  reach  beyond  the  immediate  question  under  dis- 
cussion." 

Adverting  again  to  the  same  subject,  towards  the  close  of  the 
despatch,  he  says,  "  I  will  add  nothing  as  to  the  impropriety  of 
suffering  any  feelings  that  find  their  origin  in  the  past  preten- 
sions of  this  government  to  have  an  adverse  influence  upon  the 
present  conduct  of  Great  Britain." 

I  ask  again,  Mr.  President,  if  this  be  statesmanship  ?  if  this  be 
dignity?  if  this  be  elevated  regard  for  country?  Can  any  man 
read  this  whole  despatch  with  candor,  and  not  admit  that  it  is 
plainly  and  manifestly  the  writer's  intention  to  promote  the  in- 
terests of  his  party  at  the  expense  of  those  of  the  country  ? 

Lest  I  should  do  the  Secretary  injustice,  I  will  read  all  that  I 
find,  in  this  letter,  upon  this  obnoxious  point.  These  are  the 
paragraphs :  — 

"  Such  is  the  present  state  of  our  commercial  relations  with  the  Brit- 
ish colonies ;  and  such  the  steps  by  which  we  have  arrived  at  it.  In  re- 
viewing the  events  which  have  preceded,  and  more  or  less  contributed 
to,  a  result  so  much  to  be  regretted,  there  will  be  found  three  grounds 
upon  which  we  are  most  assailable ; —  1st.  In  our  too  long  and  too  tena- 
ciously resisting  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  impose  protecting  duties  in 
her  colonies  ;  2d,"  &c. 

"  The  opportunities  which  you  have  derived  from  a  participation  in 
our  public  counsels,  as  well  as  other  sources  of  information,  will  enable 
you  to  speak  with  confidence  (as  far  as  you  may  deem  it  proper  and 
useful  so  to  do)  of  the  respective  parts  taken  by  those  to  whom  the  ad- 
ministration of  this  government  is  now  committed,  in  relation  to  the 
course  heretofore  pursued  upon  the  subject  of  the  colonial  trade.  Their 

VOL.  III.  31 


362  THE  NOMINATION  OF  MR.  VAN  BUREN 

views  upon  that  point  have  been  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  the  counsels  by  which  your  conduct  is  now  directed  are  the 
result  of  the  judgment  expressed  by  the  only  earthly  tribunal  to  which 
the  late  administration  was  amenable  for  its  acts.  It  should  be  sufficient 
that  the  claims  set  up  by  them,  and  which  caused  the  interruption  of  the 
trade  in  question,  have  been  explicitly  abandoned  by  those  who  first  a«- 
serted  them,  and  are  not  revived  by  their  successors.  If  Great  Brittin 
deems  it  adverse  to  her  interests  to  allow  us  to  participate  in  the  trade 
with  her  colonies,  and  finds  nothing  in  the  extension  of  it  to  others  to  in- 
duce her  to  apply  the  same  rule  to  us,  she  will,  we  hope,  be  sensible  of 
the  propriety  of  placing  her  refusal  on  those  grounds.  To  set  up  the 
acts  of  the  late  administration  as  the  cause  of  forfeiture  of  privileges 
which  would  otherwise  be  extended  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
would,  under  existing  circumstances,  be  unjust  in  itself,  and  could  not  fail 
to  excite  their  deepest  sensibility.  The  tone  of  feeling  which  a  course  so 
nnwise  and  untenable  is  calculated  to  produce,  would  doubtless  be  greatly 
aggravated  by  the  consciousness  that  Great  Britain  has,  by  order  in  coun- 
cil, opened  her  colonial  ports  to  Russia  and  France,  notwithstanding  a 
similar  omission  on  their  part  to  accept  the  terms  offered  by  the  act  of 
July,  1825.  You  cannot  press  this  view  of  the  subject  too  earnestly  upon 
the  consideration  of  the  British  ministry.  It  has  bearings  and  relations 
that  reach  beyond  the  immediate  question  under  discussion." 

"  I  will  add  nothing  as  to  the  impropriety  of  suffering  any  feelings  that 
find  their  origin  in  the  past  pretensions  of  this  government  to  have  an 
adverse  influence  upon  the  present  conduct  of  Great  Britain." 

Sir,  I  submit  to  you,  and  to  the  candor  of  all  just  men,  if  I 
am  not  right  in  saying  that  the  pervading  topic,  through  the 
whole,  is,  not  American  rights,  not  American  interests,  not 
American  defence,  but  denunciation  of  past  pretensions  of  our 
own  country,  reflections  on  the  past  administration,  and  exulta- 
tion and  a  loud  claim  of  merit  for  the  administration  now  in 
power.  Sir,  I  would  forgive  mistakes ;  I  would  pardon  the  want 
of  information  ;  I  would  pardon  almost  any  thing,  where  I  saw 
true  patriotism  and  sound  American  feeling ;  but  I  cannot  for- 
give the  sacrifice  of  this  feeling  to  mere  party.  I  cannot  con- 
cur in  sending  abroad  a  public  agent,  who  has  not  concep- 
tions so  large  and  liberal  as  to  feel,  that,  in  the  presence  of  for- 
eign courts,  amidst  the  monarchies  of  Europe,  he  is  to  stand 
up  for  his  country,  and  his  whole  country;  that  no  jot  nor 
tittle  of  her  honor  is  to  suffer  in  his  hands ;  that  he  is  not  to 
allow  others  to  reproach  either  his  government  or  his  country 


AS  MINISTER  TO  ENGLAND.  363 

and  far  less  is  he  himself  to  reproach  either;  that  he  is  to  have 
no  objects  in  his  eye  but  American  objects,  and  no  heart  in  his 
bosom  but  an  American  heart;  and  that  he  is  to  forget  self,  and 
forget  party,  to  forget  every  sinister  and  narrow  feeling,  in  his 
proud  and  lofty  attachment  to  the  republic  whose  commission 
he  bears. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  discharged  an  exceedingly  unpleasant 
duty,  the  most  unpleasant  of  my  public  life.  But  I  have  looked 
upon  it  as  a  duty,  and  it  was  not  to  be  shunned.  And,  Sir, 
however  unimportant  may  be  the  opinion  of  so  humble  an  indi- 
vidual as  myself,  I  now  only  wish  that  I  might  be  heard  by 
every  independent  freeman  in  the  United  States,  by  the  British 
minister  and  the  British  king,  and  by  every  minister  and  every 
crowned  head  in  Europe,  while,  standing  here  in  my  place,  I 
pronounce  my  rebuke,  as  solemnly  and  as  decisively  as  I  can, 
upon  this  first  instance  in  which  an  American  minister  has  been 
sent  abroad  as  the  representative  of  his  party,  and  not  as  the 
representative  of  his  country. 


FURTHER  REMARKS  ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT/ 

IN  reply  to  some  remarks  of  Mr.  Forsyth,  Mr.  Webster  spoke  as 
follows :  — 

IT  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  what 
is  now  called  the  American  "  pretension "  originated  with  Mr. 
Adams,  either  as  President  or  Secretary  of  State.     By  the  way, 
it  is  singular  enough  that  the  American  side  of  this  question  is 
called,  in  the  instructions  before  us,  a  pretension  too  long  persist- 
ed in ;  while  the  British  side  of  it  is  called  a  right,' too  long  and 
too  tenaciously  resisted  by  us.     This  courteous  mode  of  speak- 
ng  of  the  claims  of  a  foreign  government,  and  this  reproachful 
node  of  speaking  of  the  claims  of  our  own,  is  certainly  some- 
what novel  in  diplomacy.     But  whether  it  be  called,  respect- 
ully,  a  claim,  or,  reproachfully,  a  pretension,  it  did  not  originate 
with  Mr.  Adams.     It  had  a  much  earlier  origin.     This  "  preten- 

*  In  Secret  Session  of  the  Senate,  on  the  26th  of  January,  1839 


864  THE  NOMINATION  OF  MR.   VAN  BUREN 

sion,"  now  abandoned  with  so  much  scorn,  or  this  claim,  said, 
reproachfully,  to  have  been  first  set  up  by  the  late  administra- 
tion, originated  with  George  Washington.  He  put  his  own 
hand  to  it.  He  insisted  on  it ;  and  he  would  not  treat  with 
England  on  the  subject  of  the  colonial  trade  without  consid- 
ering it. 

In  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Morris,  under  his  own  hand,  in 
October,  1789,  President  Washington  says :  — 

"  Let  it  be  strongly  impressed  on  your  mind,  that  the  privilege  of  car- 
rying our  produciions  in  our  vessels  to  their  islands,  and  bringing  in  re- 
turn the  productions  of  those  islands  to  our  own  ports  and  markets,  is 
regarded  here  as  of  the  highest  importance  ;  and  you  will  be  careful  not 
to  countenance  any  idea  of  our  dispensing  with  it  in  a  treaty.  Ascer> 
tain,  if  possible,  their  views  on  this  subject ;  for  it  would  not  be  expe- 
dient to  commence  negotiations  without  previously  having  good  reasons 
to  expect  a  satisfactory  termination  of  them." 

Observe,  Sir,  that  President  Washington,  in  these  instruc- 
tions, is  not  speaking  of  the  empty  and  futile  right  of  sending 
our  own  vessels  without  cargoes  to  the  British  West  Indies ; 
but  he  is  speaking  of  the  substantial  right  of  carrying  our  own 
products  to  the  islands,  for  sale  and  for  consumption  there. 
And  whether  these  products  were  shut  out  by  a  positive  act  of 
Parliament,  or  by  a  tariff  of  duties  absolutely  and  necessarily 
prohibitory,  could  make  no  difference.  The  object  was  to  pro- 
vide by  treaty,  if  it  could  be  done,  that  our  products  should  find 
their  way,  effectually  and  profitably,  into  the  markets  of  the 
British  West  Indies.  This  was  General  Washington's  object. 
This  was  the  "  pretension  "  which  he  set  up. 

It  is  well  known,  Sir,  that  no  satisfactory  arrangement  was 
made  in  General  Washington's  time  respecting  our  trade  with 
the  British  West  Indies.  But  the  breaking  out  of  the  French 
Revolution,  and  the  wars  which  it  occasioned,  were  causes 
which  of  themselves  opened  the  ports  of  the  West  Indies.  Dur- 
ing the  long  continuance  of  .those  wars,  our  vessels,  with  car- 
goes of  our  own  products,  found  their  way  into  the  British  West 
India  Islands,  under  a  practical  relaxation  of  the  British  colonial 
system.  While  this  condition  of  things  lasted,  we  did  very 
well  without  a  particular  treaty.  But  on  the  general  restora- 
tion of  peace,  in  1815,  Great  Britain  returned  to  her  former 
system ;  then  the  islands  were  shut  against  us ;  and  then  it 


AS  MINISTER  TO  ENGLAND.  365 

became  necessary  to  treat  on  the  subject,  and  our  ministers 
were,  successively,  instructed  to  treat,  from  that  time  forward. 
And,  Sir,  I  undertake  to  say,  that  neither  Mr.  Madison,  who 
was  then  President,  nor  his  successor,  Mr.  Monroe,  gave  any 
authority  or  permission  to  any  American  minister  to  abandon 
this  pretension,  or  even  to  waive  it  or  postpone  it,  and  make  a 
treaty  without  providing  for  it.  No  such  thing.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  will  appear,  I  think,  if  we  look  through  papers  which 
have  been  sent  to  the  Senate,  that,  under  Mr.  Madison's  admin- 
istration, our  minister  in  England  was  fully  instructed  on  this 
subject,  and  expected  to  press  it.  As  to  Mr.  Monroe,  I  have 
means  of  being  informed,  in  a  manner  not  liable  to  mistake, 
that  he  was  on  this  subject  always  immovable.  He  would  not 
negotiate  without  treating  on  this  branch  of  the  trade ;  nor  did 
I  ever  understand,  that,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  there  was  any 
difference  of  opinion  whatever  among  the  gentlemen  who  com- 
posed Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet.  Mr.  Adams,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
wrote  the  despatches  and  the  instructions ;  but  the  policy  was 
the  policy  of  the  whole  administration,  as  far  as  I  ever  under- 
stood. Certain  it  is,  it  was  the  settled  and  determined  policy  of 
Mr.  Monroe  himself.  Indeed,  Sir,  so  far  is  it  from  being  true 
that  this  pretension  originated  with  Mr.  Adams,  that  it  was  in 
his  administration  that,  for  the  first  time,  permission  was  given, 
under  very  peculiar  circumstances,  and  with  instructions,  to  ne- 
gotiate a  treaty,  waiving  this  part  of  the  question.  This  has 
been  already  alluded  to,  and  fully  explained,  by  the  honorable 
member  from  Kentucky. 

So,  then,  Sir,  this  pretension,  asserted  in  the  instructions  to 
have  been  first  set  up  by  the  late  administration,  is  shown  to 
have  had  President  Washington  for  its  author,  and  to  have  re- 
ceived the  countenance  of  every  President  who  had  occasion  to 
act  on  the  subject,  from  1789  down  to  the  time  of  the  present 
administration. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Congress  itself  has  sanctioned  the  same 
"  pretension."  The  act  of  the  1st  of  March,  1823,  makes  it  an 
express  condition  upon  which,  and  upon  which  alone,  our  ports 
shall  be  opened  to  British  vessels  and  cargoes  from  the  West 
Indies  on  paying  the  same  duties  as  our  vessels  and  cargoes,  that 
ow  products  shall  be  admitted  into  those  islands  ivithout  pat/ing-  any 
other  or  higher  duties  than  shall  be  paid  on  similar  productions 
31* 


366  THE  NOMINATION   OF  MR.   VAN  BUREN   - 

coming-  from  elsewhere.  All  this  will  be  seen  by  reference  to 
the  third  section  of  that  act.  Now  remember,  Sir,  that  this  act 
of  Congress  passed  in  March,  1823,  two  years  before  the  com- 
mencement of  Mr.  Adams's  administration.  The  act  originated 
in  the  Senate.  The  honorable  Senator  from  Maryland,*  who 
has  spoken  on  this  subject  to-day,  was  then  a  member  of 
the  Senate,  and  took  part  in  the  discussion  of  this  very  bill ; 
and  he  supported  it,  and  voted  for  it.  It  passed  both  houses, 
without  material  opposition  in  either.  How  is  it  possible,  after 
referring  to  this  law  of  1823,  to  find  any  apology  for  the  asser- 
tion contained  in  these  instructions,  that  this  claim  is  a  preten- 
sion first  set  up  by  Mr.  Adams's  administration?  How  is  it 
possible  that  this  law  could  have  been  overlooked  or  not  remem- 
bered ?  In  short,  Sir,  with  any  tolerable  acquaintance  with  the 
history  of  the  negotiations  of  the  United  States  or  their  legisla- 
tion, how  are  we  to  account  for  it  that  such  an  assertion  as 
these  instructions  contain  should  have  found  its  way  into  them  ? 

But  the  honorable  member  from  Georgia  asks  why  we  lay 
all  this  to  the  charge  of  the  Secretary,  and  not  to  the  charge  of 
the  President.  The  answer  is,  the  President's  conduct  is  not 
before  us.  We  are  not,  and  cannot  become,  his  accusers,  even 
if  we  thought  there  were  any  thing  in  his  conduct  which  gave 
cause  for  accusation.  But  the  Secretary  is  before  us.  Not 
brought  before  us  by  any  act  of  ours,  but  placed  before  us  by 
the  President's  nomination.  On  that  nomination  we  cannot 
decline  to  act.  We  must  either  confirm  or  reject  it.  As  to  the 
notion  that  the  Secretary  of  State  was  but  the  instrument  of  the 
President,  and  so  not  responsible  for  these  instructions,  I  reject 
at  once  all  such  defence,  excuse,  or  apology,  or  whatever  else  it 
may  be  called.  If  there  be  any  thing  in  a  public  despatch  de- 
rogatory to  the  honor  of  the  country,  as  I  think  there  is  in  this, 
it  is  enough  for  me  that  I  see  whose  hand  is  to  it.  If  it  be 
said,  that  the  signer  was  only  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of 
others,  I  reply,  that  I  cannot  concur  in  conferring  a  high  public 
diplomatic  trust  on  any  one  who  has  consented,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, to  be  an  instrument  in  such  a  case. 

The  honorable  member  from  Georgia  asks,  also,  why  we  have 
*lept  on  this  subject,  and  why,  at  this  late  day,  we  bring  forward 

*  Mr.  Smith. 


AS   MINISTER  TO   ENGLAND  367 

complaints.  Sir,  nobody  has  slept  upon  it  Since  these  in- 
structions have  been  made  public,  there  has  been  no  previous 
opportunity  to  discuss  them.  The  honorable  member  will  rec- 
ollect, that  the  whole  arrangement  with  England  was  made 
and  completed  before  these  instructions  saw  the  light.  The 
President  opened  the  trade  by  his  proclamation,  in  October, 
1830 ;  but  these  instructions  were  not  publicly  sent  to  Congress 
till  long  afterwards,  that  is,  till  January,  1831.  They  were  not 
then  sent  with  any  view  that  either  house  should  act  upon  the 
subject,  for  the  whole  business  was  already  settled.  For  one,  I 
never  saw  the  instructions,  nor  heard  them  read,  till  January, 
1831 ;  nor  did  I  ever  hear  them  spoken  of  as  containing  these 
obnoxious  passages.  This,  then,  is  the  first  opportunity  for  con- 
sidering these  instructions. 

That  they  have  been  subjects  of  complaint  out  doors  since 
they  were  made  public,  and  of  much  severe  animadversion,  is 
certainly  true.  Bat,  until  now,  there  never  has  been  an  oppor- 
tunity naturally  calling  for  their  discussion  here.  The  honora- 
ble gentleman  may  be  assured,  that,  if  such  occasion  had  pre- 
sented itself,  it  would  have  been  embraced. 

I  entirely  forbear,  Mr.  President,  from  going  into  the  merits 
of  the  late  arrangement  with  England,  as  a  measure  of  commer- 
cial policy.  Another  time  will  come,  I  trust,  more  suitable  for 
that  discussion.  For  the  present,  I  confine  myself  strictly  to 
such  parts  of  the  instructions  as  I  think  plainly  objectionable, 
whatever  may  be  the  character  of  the  agreement  between  us 
and  England,  as  matter  of  policy.  I  repeat,  Sir,  that  I  place 
the  justification  of  my  vote  on  the  party  tone  and  party  charac- 
ter of  these  instructions.  Let  us  ask,  If  such  considerations  as 
these  are  to  be  addressed  to  a  foreign  government,  what  is  that 
foreign  government  to  expect  in  return  ?  The  ministers  of  for- 
eign courts  will  not  bestow  gratuitous  favors,  nor  even  gratui- 
tous smiles,  on  American  parties.  What,  then,  I  repeat,  is  to 
be  the  return  ?  What  is  party  to  do  for  that  foreign  gov- 
ernment which  has  done,  is  expected  to  do,  or  is  asked  to 
do,  something  for  party  ?  What  is  to  be  the  consideration 
paid  for  this  foreign  favor  ?  Sir,  must  not  every  man  see,  that 
any  mixture  of  such  causes  or  motives  of  action  in  our  foreign 
intercourse  is  as  full  of  danger  as  it  is  of  dishonor  ? 

I  will  not  pursue  the  subject.     I  am  anxious  only  to  make 


368  THE  NOMINATION  OF  MR.  VAN  BUREN. 

my  own  ground  fully  and  clearly  understood;  and  willingly 
leave  every  other  gentleman  to  his  own  opinions.  And  I  cheer- 
fully submit  my  own  vote  to  the  opinions  of  the  country.  I  will- 
ingly leave  it  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  say,  whether 
I  am  acting  a  factious  and  unworthy  part,  or  the  part  of  a 
true-hearted  American,  in  withholding  my  approbation  from  the 
nomination  of  a  gentleman  as  minister  to  England,  who  has 
already,  as  it  appears  to  me,  instructed  his  predecessor  at  the 
same  court  to  carry  party  considerations,  to  argue  party  merits, 
and  solicit  party  favors,  at  the  foot  of  the  British  throne. 

Note.  —  The  circumstance  did  not  occur  to  Mr.  Webster's  recollection 
at  the  moment  he  was  speaking,  but  the  truth  is,  that  Mr.  Van  Buren 
was  himself  a  member  of  the  Senate  at  the  very  time  of  the  passing 
of  the  law  of  1823,  and  Mr.  McLane  was  at  the  same  time  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  So  that  Mr.  Van  Buren  did  himself 
certainly  concur  in  "  setting  up  this  pretension,"  two  years  before  Mr. 
Axlams  became  President. 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION/ 


THE  object  of  the  following  report  is  to  set  forth  the  unjust  operation 
of  the  rule  by  which  the  apportionment  of  Representatives  had  hitherto 
been  made  among  the  States,  and  was  proposed  to  be  made  under 
the  fifth  census.  Notwithstanding  the  manifest  unequal  operation  of 
the  rule,  and  the  cogency  of  the  arguments  against  it  contained  in  this 
report,  Congress  could  not  be  brought  on  this  occasion,  nor  on  that  of 
the  next  decennial  apportionment,  to  apply  the  proper  remedy. 

In  making  provision  for  the  apportionment  under  the  census  of  1850, 
the  principles  of  this  report  prevailed.  By  the  act  of  the  23d  of  May, 
1850,  it  is  provided  that  the  number  of  the  new  House  shall  be  233. 
The  entire  representative  population  of  the  United  States  is  to  be  divided 
by  this  sum  ;  and  the  quotient  is  the  ratio  of  apportionment  among  the 
several  States.  Their  representative  population  is  in  turn  to  be  divided  by 
this  ratio  ;  and  the  loss  of  members  arising  from  the  residuary  numbers 
is  made  up  by  assigning  as  many  additional  members  as  are  neccssaiy 
for  that  purpose  to  the  States  having  the  largest  fractional  remainders. 
It  was  a  further  very  happy  provision  of  the  law  of  the  23d  of  May, 
1850,  that  this  apportionment  should  be  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  after  the  returns  of  the  census  should  have  been  made,  and 
without  the  necessity  of  any  further  action  on  the  part  of  Congress. 

THE  Select  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred,  on  the  27th  of 
March,  the  bill  from  the  House  of  Representatives,  entitled, 
"  An  Act  for  the  Apportionment  of  Representatives  among 
the  several  States  according  to  the  Fifth  Census,"  have  had 
the  subject  under  consideration,  and  now  ask  leave  to  report: 

THIS  bill,  like  all  laws  on  the  same  subject,  irust  be  regarded 
as  of  an  interesting  and  delicate  nature.  It  respects  the  distri- 

*  A  Report  on  the  Subject  of  the  Apportionment  of  Representation,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  made  in  the  Senate,  on  the  5th 
of  April,  1832. 


370  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

bution  of  political  power  among  the  States  oT  the  Union.  It  is 
to  determine  the  number  of  voices  which,  for  ten  years  to  come, 
each  State  is  to  possess  in  the  popular  branch  of  the  legisla- 
ture. In  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  there  can  be  few  or  no 
questions  which  it  is  more  desirable  to  settle  on  just,  fair,  and 
satisfactory  principles,  than  this ;  and,  availing  themselves  of 
the  benefit  of  the  discussion  which  the  bill  has  already  under- 
gone in  the  Senate,  they  have  given  to  it  a  renewed  and  anxious 
consideration,  The  result  is,  that,  in  their  opinion,  the  bill 
ought  to  be  amended.  Seeing  the  difficulties  which  belong  to 
the  whole  subject,  they  are  fully  convinced  that  the  bill  has  been 
framed  and  passed  in  the  other  House  with  the  sincerest  desire 
to  overcome  these  difficulties,  and  to  enact  a  law  which  should 
do  as  much  justice  as  possible  to  all  the  States.  But  the  com- 
mittee are  constrained  to  say,  that  this  object  appears  to  them 
not  to  have  been  attained.  The  unequal  operation  of  the  bill 
on  some  of  the  States,  should  it  become  a  law,  seems  to  the 
committee  most  manifest ;  and  they  cannot  but  express  a  doubt 
whether  its  actual  apportionment  of  the  representative  power 
among  the  several  States  can  be  considered  as  conformable  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Constitution. 

The  bill  provides,  that  from  and  after  the  3d  of  March,  1833, 
the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of  members 
elected  agreeably  to  a  ratio  of  one  Representative  for  every 
forty-seven  thousand  and  seven  hundred  persons  in  each  State, 
computed  according  to  the  rule  prescribed  by  the  Constitution. 
The  addition  of  the  seven  hundred  to  the  forty-seven  thousand, 
in  the  composition  of  this  ratio,  produces  no  effect  whatever  in 
regard  to  the  constitution  of  the  House.  It  neither  adds  to  nor 
takes  from  the  number  of  members  assigned  to  any  State.  Its 
only  effect  is  a  reduction  of  the  apparent  amount  of  the  frac- 
tions, as  they  are  usually  called,  or  residuary  numbers,  after  the 
application  of  the  ratio.  For  all  other  purposes,  the  result  is 
precisely  the  same  as  if  the  ratio  had  been  forty-seven  thou- 
sand. 

As  it  seems  generally  admitted  that  inequalities  do  exist  in 
this  bill,  and  that  injurious  consequences  will  arise  from  its  op- 
eration, which  it  would  be  desirable  to  avert,  if  any  proper 
means  of  averting  them,  without  producing  others  equally  in- 
jurious, could  be  found,  the  committee  do  not  think  it  necessary 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION.  371 

to  go  into  a  full  and  particular  statement  of  these  consequences. 
They  will  content  themselves  with  presenting  a  few  examples 
only  of  these  results,  and  such  as  they  find  it  most  difficult  to 
reconcile  with  justice  and  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution. 

In  exhibiting  these  examples,  the  committee  must  necessarily 
speak  of  particular  States;  but  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say, 
that  they  speak  of  them  as  examples  only,  and  with  the  most 
perfect  respect,  not  only  for  the  States  themselves,  but  for  all 
those  who  represent  them  here. 

Although  the  bill  does  not  commence  by  fixing  the  whole 
number  of  the  proposed  House  of  Representatives,  yet  the  pro- 
cess adopted  by  it  brings  out  the  number  of  two  hundred  and 
forty  members.  Of  these  two  hundred  and  forty  members,  forty 
are  assigned  to  the  State  of  New  York ;  that  is  to  say,  precisely 
one  sixth  part  of  the  whole.  This  assignment  would  seem  to 
require  that  New  York  should  contain  one  sixth  part  of  the 
whole  population  of  the  United  States,  and  should  be  bound 
to  pay  one  sixth  part  of  all  direct  taxes.  Yet  neither  of  these 
is  the  case.  The  whole  representative  population  of  the  United 
States  is  11,929,005 ;  that  of  New  York  is  1,918,623,  which  is 
less  than  one  sixth  of  the  whole,  by  nearly  70,000.  Of  a  direct 
tax  of  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand  dollars,  New  York  would 
pay  only  $  38.59. 

But  if,  instead  of  comparing  the  numbers  assigned  to  New 
York  with  the  whole  numbers  of  the  House,  we  compare  her 
with  other  States,  the  inequality  is  still  more  evident  and  strik- 
ing. To  the  State  of  Vermont  the  bill  assigns  five  members. 
It  gives,  therefore,  eight  times  as  many  Representatives  to  New 
York  as  to  Vermont;  but  the  population  of  New  York  is  not 
equal  to  eight  times  the  population  of  Vermont,  by  more  than 
three  hundred  thousand.  Vermont  has  five  members  only  for 
280,657  persons.  If  the  same  proportion  were  to  be  applied  to 
New  York,  it  would  reduce  the  number  of  her  members  from 
forty  to  thirty-four,  making  a  difference  more  than  equal  to  the 
whole  representation  of  Vermont,  and  more  than  sufficient  to 
overcome  her  whole  power  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

A  disproportion  almost  equally  striking  is  manifested,  if  we 
compare  New  York  with  Alabama.  The  population  of  Alabama 
is  262,203 ;  for  this  she  is  allowed  five  members.  The  rule  of 
proportion  which  gives  to  her  but  five  members  for  her  number, 


372  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

would  give  to  New  York  but  thirty-six  for  her  number.  Yet 
New  York  receives  forty.  As  compared  with  Alabama,  then, 
New  York  has  an  excess  of  representation  equal  to  four  fifths 
of  the  whole  representation  of  Alabama ;  and  this  excess  itself 
will  give  her,  of  course,  as  much  weight  in  the  House  as  the 
whole  delegation  of  Alabama,  within  a  single  vote.  Can  it 
be  said,  then,  that  Representatives  are  apportioned  to  these 
States  according  to  their  respective  numbers  ? 

The  ratio  assumed  by  the  bill,  it  will  be  perceived,  leaves 
large  fractions,  so  called,  or  residuary  numbers,  in  several  of 
the  small  States,  to  the  manifest  loss  of  a  great  part  of  their 
just  proportion  of  representative  power.  Such  is  the  operation 
of  the  ratio,  in  this  respect,  that  New  York,  with  a  popula- 
tion less  than  that  of  New  England  by  thirty  or  thirty-five 
thousand,  has  yet  two  more  members  than  all  the  New  Eng- 
land States ;  and  there  are  seven  States  in  the  Union,  repre- 
sented, according  to  the  bill,  by  one  hundred  and  twenty-three 
members,  being  a  clear  majority  of  the  whole  House,  whose 
aggregate  fractions,  all  together,  amount  only  to  fifty-three  thou- 
sand; while  Vermont  and  New  Jersey,  having  together  but 
eleven  members,  have  a  joint  fraction  of  seventy-five  thousand. 

Pennsylvania,  by  the  bill,  will  have,  as  it  happens,  just  as 
many  members  as  Vermont,  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
and  New  Jersey ;  but  her  population  is  not  equal  to  theirs  by 
a  hundred  and  thirty  thousand ;  and  the  reason  of  this  advan- 
tage, derived  to  her  from  the  provision  of  the  bill,  is,  that 
her  fraction,  or  residuum,  is  twelve  thousand  only,  while  theirs 
is  a  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand. 

But  the  subject  is  capable  of  being  presented  in  a  more  ex- 
act and  mathematical  form.  The  House  is  to  consist  of  two 
hundred  and  forty  members.  Now,  the  precise  portion  of  pow- 
er, out  of  the  whole  mass  presented  by  the  number  of  two 
hundred  and  forty,  to  which  New  York  would  be  entitled 
according  to  her  population,  is  38.59 ;  that  is  to  say,  she  would 
be  entitled  to  thirty-eight  members,  and  would  have  a  residuum 
or  fraction;  and  even  if  a  member  were  given  her  for  that 
fraction,  she  would  still  have  but  thirty-nine.  But  the  bill  gives 
her  forty. 

These  are  a  part,  and  but  a  part,  of  those  results,  produced  by 
the  bill  in  its  present  form,  which  the  committee  cannot  bring 


APPORTIONMENT  OF   REPRESENTATION.  373 

themselves  to  approve.  While  it  is  not  to  be  denied,  that,  under 
any  rule  of  apportionment,  some  degree  of  relative  inequality 
must  always  exist,  the  committee  cannot  believe  that  the  Sen- 
ate will  sanction  inequality  and  injustice  to  the  extent  in  which 
they  exist  in  this  bill,  if  it  can  be  avoided.  But,  recollecting 
the  opinions  which  had  been  expressed  in  the  discussions  of  the 
Senate,  the  committee  have  diligently  sought  to  learn  whether 
there  was  not  some  other  number  which  might  be  taken  for  a 
ratio,  the  application  of  which  would  produce  more  justice  and 
equality.  In  this  pursuit,  the  committee  have  not  been  success- 
ful. There  are,  it  is  true,  other  numbers,  the  adoption  of  which 
would  relieve  many  of  the  States  which  suffer  under  the  pres- 
ent; but  this  relief  would  be  obtained  only  by  shifting  the 
pressure  to  other  States,  thus  creating  new  grounds  of  com- 
plaint in  other  quarters.  The  number  44,000  has  been  gen- 
erally spoken  of  as  the  most  acceptable  substitute  for  47,700 ; 
but  should  this  be  adopted,  great  relative  inequality  would  fall 
on  several  States,  and,  among  them,  on  some  of  the  new  and 
growing  States,  whose  relative  disproportion,  thus  already  great, 
would  be  constantly  increasing. 

The  committee,  therefore,  are  of  opinion  that  the  bill  should  be 
altered  in  the  mode  of  apportionment.  They  think  that  the  pro- 
cess which  begins  by  assuming  a  ratio  should  be  abandoned,  and 
that  the  bill  ought  to  be  framed  on  the  principle  of  the  amend- 
ment which  has  been  the  main  subject  of  discussion  before  the 
Senate.  The  fairness  of  the  principle  of  this  amendment,  and 
the  general  equity  of  its  results,  compared  with  those  which  flow 
from  the  other  process,  seem  plain  and  undeniable.  The  main 
question  has  been,  whether  the  principle  itself  be  constitutional; 
and  this  question  the  committee  proceed  to  examine,  respectfully 
asking  of  those  who  have  doubted  its  constitutional  propriety 
to  consider  the  question  of  so  much  importance  as  to  justify  a 
second  reflection. 

The  words  of  the  Constitution  are,  — 

u  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the 
several  States,  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union,  according  to 
their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the 
whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  service  for  a 
term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians,  three  fifths  of  all  other  persons. 
The  actual  enumeration  shall  be  made  within  three  years  after  the  first 

VOL.  in.  32 


374  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

meeting  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  within  every  subse- 
quent term  of  ten  years,  in  such  manner  as  they  shall  by  law  direct. 
The  number  of  Representatives  shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty 
thousand,  but  each  State  shall  have  at  least  one  Representative." 

There  would  seem  to  be  little  difficulty  in  understanding  these 
provisions.  The  terms  used  are  designed,  doubtless,  to  be  re- 
ceived in  no  peculiar  or  technical  sense,  but  according  to  their 
common  and  popular  acceptation.  To  apportion  is  to  distribute 
by  right  measure,  to  set  off  in  just  parts,  to  assign  in  due  and 
.proper  proportion.  These  clauses  of  the  Constitution  respect 
not  only  the  portions  of  power,  but  the  portions  of  the  public 
burden,  also,  which  should  fall  to  the  several  States ;  and  the 
same  language  is  applied  to  both.  Representatives  are  to  be 
apportioned  among  the  States  according  to  their  respective  num- 
bers, and  direct  taxes  are  to  be  apportioned  by  the  same  rule. 
The  end  aimed  at  is,  that  representation  and  taxation  should  go 
hand  in  hand ;  that  each  State  should  be  represented  in  the  same 
extent  to  which  it  is  made  subject  to  the  public  charges  by  direct 
taxation.  But  between  the  apportionment  of  Representatives 
and  the  apportionment  of  taxes,  there  necessarily  exists  one  es- 
sential difference.  Representation  founded  on  numbers  must 
have  some  limit,  and  being,  from  its  nature,  a  thing  not  capable 
of  indefinite  subdivision,  it  cannot  be  made  precisely  equal.  A 
tax,  indeed,  cannot  always,  or  often,  be  apportioned  with  perfect 
exactness ;  as  in  other  matters  of  account,  there  will  be  frac- 
tional parts  of  the  smallest  coins,  and  the  smallest  denomination 
of  money  of  account;  yet,  by  the  usual  subdivisions  of  the  coin, 
and  of  the  denominations  of  money,  the  apportionment  of  taxes 
is  capable  of  being  made  so  exact,  that  the  inequality  becomes 
minute  and  invisible.  But  representation  cannot  be  thus  di- 
vided. Of  representation,  there  can  be  nothing  less  than  one 
Representative;  nor,  by  our  Constitution,  more  Representatives 
than  one  for  every  thirty  thousand.  It  is  quite  obvious,  there- 
fore, that  the  apportionment  of  representative  power  can  never 
be  precise  and  perfect.  There  must  always  exist  some  degree 
of  inequality.  Those  who  framed  and  those  who  adopted  the 
Constitution  were,  of  course,  fully  acquainted  with  this  neces- 
sary operation  of  the  provision.  In  the  Senate,  the  States  are 
entitled  to  a  fixed  number  of  Senators;  and  therefore,  in  regard 
to  their  representation  in  that  body,  there  is  no  consequential 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION.  375 

or  incidental  inequality.  But,  being  represented  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  according  to  their  respective  numbers  of 
people,  it  is  unavoidable  that,  in  assigning  to  each  State  it? 
number  of  members,  the  exact  proportion  of  each,  out  of  a  given 
number,  cannot  always  or  often  be  expressed  in  whole  num- 
bers ;  that  is  to  say,  it  will  not  often  be  found  that  there  be- 
longs to  a  State  exactly  one  tenth,  or  one  twentieth,  or  one  thir- 
tieth of  the  whole  House;  and  therefore  no  number  of  Repre- 
sentatives will  exactly  correspond  with  the  right  of  such  State, 
or  the  precise  share  of  representation  which  belongs  to  it,  accord- 
ing to  its  population. 

The  Constitution,  therefore,  must  be  understood,  not  as  enjoin- 
ing an  absolute  relative  equality,  because  that  would  be  de- 
manding an  impossibility,  but  as  requiring  of  Congress  to  make 
the  apportionment  of  Representatives  among  the  several  States 
according  to  their  respective  numbers,  as  near  as  may  be.  That 
which  cannot  be  done  perfectly  must  be  done  in  a  manner  as 
near  perfection  as  can  be.  If  exactness  cannot,  from  the  nature 
of  things,  be  attained,  then  the  nearest  practicable  approach  to 
exactness  ought  to  be  made. 

Congress,  is  not  absolved  from  all  rule  merely  because  the  rule 
of  perfect  justice  cannot  be  applied.  In  such  a  case,  approx- 
imation becomes  a  rule ;  it  takes  the  place  of  that  other  rule> 
which  would  be  preferable,  but  which  is  found  inapplicable,  and 
becomes  itself  an  obligation  of  binding  force.  The  nearest  ap- 
proximation to  exact  truth  or  exact  right,  when  that  exact  truth 
or  that  exact  right  cannot  itself  be  reached,  prevails  in  other 
cases,  not  as  matter  of  discretion,  but  as  an  intelligible  and  defi- 
nite rule,  dictated  by  justice  and  conforming  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind;  a  rule  of  no  less  binding  force  in  cases  to 
which  it  is  applicable,  and  no  more  to  be  departed  from,  than 
any  other  rule  or  obligation. 

The  committee  understand  the  Constitution  as  they  would 
have  understood  it  if  it  had  said,  in  so  many  words,  that  Repre- 
sentatives should  be  apportioned  among  the  States  according  to 
1  heir  respective  numbers,  as  near  as  may  be.  If  this  be  not  its 
true  meaning,  then  it  has  either  given,  on  this  most  delicate  and 
important  subject,  a  rule  which  is  always  impracticable,  or  else 
it  has  given  no  rule  at  all ;  because,  if  the  rule  be  that  Repre- 
sentatives shall  be  apportioned  exactly  according  to  numbers,  it  ia 


376  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

impracticable  in  every  case;  and  if,  for  this  reason,  that  cannot 
be  the  rule,  then  there  is  no  rule  whatever,  unless  the  rule  be 
that  they  shall  be  apportioned  as  near  as  may  be. 

This  construction,  indeed,  which  the  committee  adopt,  has 
not,  to  their  knowledge,  been  denied ;  and  they  proceed  in  the 
discussion  of  the  question  before  the  Senate,  taking  for  granted 
that  such  is  the  true  and  undeniable  meaning  of  the  Consti- 
tution. 

The  next  thing  to  be  observed  is,  that  the  Constitution  pre- 
scribes no  particular  process  by  which  this  apportionment  is  to  be 
wrought  out.  It  has  plainly  described  the  end  to  be  accom- 
plished, namely,  the  nearest  approach  to  relative  equality  of  rep- 
resentation among  the  States;  and  whatever  accomplishes  this 
end,  and  nothing  else,  is  the  true  process.  In  truth,  if,  without 
any  process  whatever,  whether  elaborate  or  easy,  Congress  could 
perceive  the  exact  proportion  of  representative  power  rightfully 
belonging  to  each  State,  it  would  perfectly  fulfil  its  duty  by  con- 
ferring that  portion  on  each,  without  reference  to  any  process 
whatever.  It  would  be  enough  that  the  proper  end  had  been 
attained.  And  it  is  to  be  remarked,  further,  that,  whether  this 
end  be  attained  best  by  one  process  or  by  another,  becomes, 
when  each  process  has  been  carried  through,  not  matter  of  opin- 
ion, but  matter  of  mathematical  certainty.  If  the  whole  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States,  the  population  of  each  State,  and 
the  proposed  number  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  be  all 
given,  then,  between  two  bills  apportioning  the  members  among 
the  several  States,  it  can  be  told  with  absolute  certainty  which 
bill  assigns  to  any  and  every  State  the  number  nearest  to  the 
exact  proportion  of  that  State  ;  in  other  words,  which  of  the  two 
bills,  if  either,  apportions  the  Representatives  according  to  the 
numbers  in  the  States,  respectively,  as  near  as  may  be.  If,  there- 
fore, a  particular  process  of  apportionment  be  adopted,  and  ob- 
jection be  made  to  the  injustice  or  inequality  of  its  result,  it  is 
surely  no  answer  to  such  objection  to  say,  that  the  inequality 
necessarily  results  from  the  nature  of  the  process.  Before  such 
answer  could  avail,  it  would  be  necessary  to  show,  either  that 
the  Constitution  prescribes  such  process,  and  makes  it  necessary, 
or  that  there  is  no  other  mode  of  proceeding  which  would  pro- 
duce less  inequality  and  less  injustice.  If  inequality,  which 
might  have  otherwise  been  avoided,  be  produced  by  a  given 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION.  377 

process,  then  that  process  is  a  wrong  one.  It  is  not  suited  to 
the  case,  and  should  be  rejected. 

Nor  do  the  committee  perceive  how  it  can  be  matter  of 
constitutional  propriety  or  validity,  or  in  any  way  a  constitu- 
tional question,  whether  the  process  which  may  be  applied  to 
the  case  be  simple  or  compound,  one  process  or  many  processes ; 
since,  in  the  end,  it  may  always  be  seen  whether  the  result  be 
that  which  has  been  aimed  at,  namely,  the  nearest  practicable 
approach  to  precise  justice  and  relative  equality.  The  commit- 
tee, indeed,  are  of  opinion,  in  this  case,  that  the  simplest  and 
most  obvious  way  of  proceeding  is  also  the  true  and  constitu- 
tional way.  To  them  it  appears,  that,  in  carrying  into  effect 
this  part  of  the  Constitution,  the  first  thing  naturally  to  be  done 
is  to  decide  on  the  whole  number  of  which  the  House  is  to  be 
composed ;  as  when,  under  the  same  clause  of  the  Constitution, 
a  tax  is  to  be  apportioned  among  the  States,  the  amount  of  the 
whole  tax  is,  in  the  first  place,  to  be  settled. 

When  the  whole  number  of  the  proposed  House  is  thus  ascer- 
tained and  fixed,  it  becomes  the  entire  representative  power  of 
all  the  people  in  the  Union.  It  is  then  a  very  simple  matter  to 
ascertain  how  much  of  this  representative  power  each  State  is 
entitled  to  by  its  numbers.  If,  for  example,  the  House  is  to  con- 
tain two  hundred  and  forty  members,  then  the  number  240  ex- 
presses the  representative  power  of  all  the  States ;  and  a  plain 
calculation  readily  shows  how  much  of  this  power  belongs  to 
each  State.  This  portion,  it  is  true,  will  not  always,  nor  often, 
be  expressed  in  whole  numbers,  but  it  may  always  be  precisely 
exhibited  by  a  decimal  form  of  expression.  If  the  portion  of 
any  State  be  seldom  or  never  one  exact  tenth,  one  exact  fif- 
teenth, or  one  exact  twentieth,  it  will  still  always  be  capable  of 
precise  decimal  expression,  as  one  tenth  and  two  hundredths,  one 
twelfth  and  four  hundredths,  one  fifteenth  and  six  hundredths, 
and  so  on.  And  the  exact  portion  of  the  State,  being  thus  deci- 
mally expressed,  will  always  show,  to  mathematical  certainty, 
what  integral  number  nomes  nearest  to  such  exact  portion.  For 
example,  in  a  House  consisting  of  240  members,  the  exact 
mathematical  proportion  to  which  her  numbers  entitle  the  State 
of  New  York  is  38.59 ;  it  is  certain,  therefore,  that  39  is  the  in- 
tegral or  whole  number  nearest  to  her  exact  proportion  of  the 
representative  power  of  the  Union.  Why,  then,  should  she  noi" 
32* 


378  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

have  thirty-nine  ?  and  why  should  she  have  forty  ?  She  is  not 
quite  entitled  to  thirty-nine;  that  number  is  something  nvore 
than  her  right.  But  allowing  her  thirty-nine,  from  the  necessity 
of  giving  her  whole  numbers,  and  because  that  is  the  nearest 
whole  number,  is  not  the  Constitution  fully  obeyed  when  she  has 
received  the  thirty-ninth  member?  Is  not  her  proper  number 
of  Representatives  then  apportioned  to  her,  as  near  as  may  be  ? 
And  is  not  the  Constitution  disregarded  when  the  bill  goes  fur- 
ther, and  gives  her  a  fortieth  member?  For  what  is  such  a  for- 
tieth member  given  ?  Not  for  her  absolute  numbers,  for  her  ab- 
solute numbers  do  not  entitle  her  to  thirty-nine.  Not  for  the  sake 
of  apportioning  her  members  to  her  numbers  as  near  as  may  be, 
because  thirty-nine  is  a  nearer  apportionment  of  members  to 
numbers  than  forty.  But  it  is  given,  say  the  advocates  of  the 
bill,  because  the  process  which  has  been  adopted  gives  it.  The 
answer  is,  No  such  process  is  enjoined  by  the  Constitution. 

The  case  of  New  York  may  be  compared,  or  contrasted,  with 
that  of  Missouri.  The  exact  proportion  of  Missouri,  in  a  gen- 
eral representation  of  240,  is  two  and  six  tenths;  that  is  to  say, 
it  comes  nearer  to  three  members  than  to  two,  yet  it  is  confined 
to  two.  But  why  is  not  Missouri  entitled  to  that  number  of 
Representatives  which  comes  nearest  to  her  exact  proportion  ? 
Is  the  Constitution  fulfilled  as  to  her,  while  that  number  is  with- 
held, and  while,  at  the  same  time,  in  another  State,  not  only  is 
that  nearest  number  given,  but  an  additional  member  given 
also  ?  Is  it  an  answer  with  which  the  people  of  Missouri  ought 
to  be  satisfied,  when  it  is  said  that  this  obvious  injustice  is  the 
necessary  result  of  the  process  adopted  by  the  bill  ?  May  they 
not  say  with  propriety,  that,  since  three  is  the  nearest  whole 
number  to  their  exact  right,  to  that  number  they  are  entitled, 
and  the  process  which  deprives  them  of  it  must  be  a  wrong 
process  ?  A  similar  comparison  might  be  made  between  New 
York  and  Vermont.  The  exact  proportion  to  which  Vermont 
is  entitled,  in  a  representation  of  240,  is  5.646.  Her  nearest 
whole  number,  therefore,  would  be  six.  Now  two  things  are 
undeniably  true ;  first,  that  to  take  away  the  fortieth  member  from 
New  York  would  bring  her  representation  nearer  to  her  exact 
proportion  than  it  stands  by  leaving  her  that  fortieth  member; 
second,  that  giving  the  member  thus  taken  from  New  York  to 
Vermont  would  bring  her  representation  nearer  to  her  exact 


APPORTIONMENT   OF  REPRESENTATION.  379 

right  than  it  is  by  the  bill.  And  both  these  propositions  are 
equally  true  of  a  transfer  to  Delaware  of  the  twenty-eighth  mem- 
ber assigned  by  the  bill  to  Pennsylvania,  and  to  Missouri  of 
the  thirteenth  member  assigned  to  Kentucky.  In  other  words, 
Vermont  has,  by  her  numbers,  more  right  to  six  members  than 
New  York  has  to  forty ;  Delaware,  by  her  numbers,  has  more 
right  to  two  members  than  Pennsylvania  has  to  twenty-eight; 
and  Missouri,  by  her  numbers,  has  more  right  to  three  members 
than  Kentucky  has  to  thirteen.  Without  disturbing  the  pro- 
posed number  of  the  House,  the  mere  changing  of  these  three 
members  from  and  to  the  six  States,  respectively,  would  bring 
the  representation  of  the  whole  six  nearer  to  their  due  propor- 
tion, according  to  their  respective  numbers,  than  the  bill  in  its 
present  form  makes  it.  In  the  face  of  this  indisputable  truth, 
how  can  it  be  said  that  the  bill  apportions  members  of  Congress 
among  those  States  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  as 
near  as  may  be  ? 

The  principle  on  which  the  proposed  amendment  is  founded 
is  an  effectual  corrective  for  these  and  all  other  equally  great  in- 
equalities. It  may  be  applied  at  all  times,  and  in  all  cases,  and 
its  result  will  always  be  the  nearest  approach  to  perfect  justice. 
It  is  equally  simple  and  impartial.  As  a  rule  of  apportionment, 
it  is  little  other  than  a  transcript  of  the  words  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  its  results  are  mathematically  certain.  The  Constitu- 
tion, as  the  committee  understand  it,  says,  Representatives  shall 
be  apportioned  among  the  States  according  to  their  respective 
numbers  of  people,  as  near  as  may  be.  The  rule  adopted  by 
the  committee  says,  out  of  the  whole  number  of  the  House,  that 
number  shall  be  apportioned  to  each  State  which  comes  nearest 
to  its  exact  right  according  to  its  number  of  people. 

Where  is  the  repugnancy  between  the  Constitution  and  the 
rule  ?  The  arguments  against  the  rule  seem  to  assume,  that 
there  is  a  necessity  of  instituting  some  process,  adopting  some 
number  as  the  ratio,  or  as  that  number  of  people  which  each 
member  shall  be  understood  to  represent.  But  the  committee 
gee  no  occasion  for  any  other  process  whatever,  than  simply  the 
ascertainment  of  that  quantum,  out  of  the  whole  mass  of  the  rep- 
resentative power,  which  each  State  may  claim. 

But  it  is  said  that,  although  a  State  may  receive  a  number 
of  Representatives  which  is  something  less  than  its  exact  pro 


380  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

portion  of  representation,  yet  that  it  can  in  no  case  constitution- 
ally receive  more.  How  is  this  proposition  proved  ?  How  is  it 
shown  that  the  Constitution  is  less  perfectly  fulfilled  by  allow- 
ing a  State  a  small  excess,  than  by  subjecting  her  to  a  large  de- 
ficiency ?  What  the  Constitution  requires  is  the  nearest  practi- 
cable approach  to  precise  justice.  The  rule  is  approximation ; 
and  we  ought  to  approach,  therefore,  on  whichever  side  we  can 
approach  nearest. 

But  there  is  a  still  more  conclusive  answer  to  be  given  to  this 
suggestion.  The  whole  number  of  Representatives  of  which 
the  House  is  to  be  composed  is,  of  necessity,  limited.  This 
number,  whatever  it  is,  is  that  which  is  to  be  apportioned,  and 
nothing  else  can  be  apportioned.  This  is  the  whole  sum  to  be 
distributed.  If,  therefore,  in  making  the  apportionment,  some 
States  receive  less  than  their  just  share,  it  must  necessarily  fol- 
low that  some  other  States  have  received  more  than  their  just 
share.  If  there  be  one  State  in  the  Union  with  less  than  its 
right,  some  other  State  has  more  than  its  right ;  so  that  the  ar- 
gument, whatever  be  its  force,  applies  to  the  bill  in  its  present 
form,  as  strongly  as  it  can  ever  apply  to  any  bill. 

But  the  objection  most  usually  urged  against  the  principle  of 
the  proposed  amendment  is,  that  it  provides  for  the  representa- 
tion of  fractions.  Let  this  objection  be  examined  and  consid- 
ered. Let  it  be  ascertained,  in  the  first  place,  what  these  frac- 
tions, or  fractional  numbers,  or  residuary  numbers,  really  are, 
which  it  is  said  will  be  represented,  should  the  amendment 
prevail. 

A  fraction  is  the  broken  part  of  some  integral  number.  It  is, 
therefore,  a  relative  or  derivative  idea.  It  implies  the  previous 
existence  of  some  fixed  number,  of  which  it  is  but  a  part  or  re- 
mainder. If  there  be  no  necessity  for  fixing  or  establishing 
such  previous  number,  then  the  fraction  resulting  from  it  is  itself 
not  matter  of  necessity,  but  matter  of  choice  or  accident.  Now, 
the  argument  which  considers  the  plan  proposed  in  the  amend- 
ment as  a  representation  of  fractions,  and  therefore  unconstitu- 
tional, assumes  as  its  basis,  that,  according  to  the  Constitution, 
every  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  represents,  or 
ought  to  represent,  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  number  of  .con- 
stituents ;  that  this  number  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  integer ;  and 
any  thing  less  than  this  is  therefore  called  a  fraction,  or  a  residu- 


APPORTIONMENT   OF  REPRESENTATION.  381 

urn,  and  cannot  be  entitled  to  a  Representative.  But  nothing 
of  this  is  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
That  Constitution  contemplates  no  integer,  or  any  common 
number  for  the  constituents  of  a  member  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. It  goes  not  at  all  into  these  subdivisions  of  the 
population  of  a  State.  It  provides  for  the  apportionment  of 
Representatives  among  the  several  States,  according  to  their  re- 
spective numbers,  and  stops  there.  It  makes  no  provision  for 
the  representation  of  districts  of  States,  or  for  the  representation 
of  any  portion  of  the  people  of  a  State  less  than  the  whole.  It 
says  nothing  of  ratios  or  of  constituent  numbers.  All  these 
things  it  leaves  to  State  legislation.  The  right  which  each  State 
possesses  to  its  own  due  portion  of  the  representative  power  is 
a  State  right,  strictly.  It  belongs  to  the  State,  as  a  State ;  and 
it  is  to  be  used  and  exercised  as  the  State  may  see  fit,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  constitutional  qualifications  of  electors.  In  fact, 
the  States  do  make,  and  always  have  made,  different  provisions 
for  the  exercise  of  this  power.  In  some,  a  single  member  is 
chosen  for  a  certain  defined  district;  in  others,  two  or  three 
members  are  chosen  for  the  same  district ;  and  in  some,  again, 
as  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  Jersey, 
and  Georgia,  the  entire  representation  of  the  State  is  a  joint 
and  undivided  representation.  In  each  of  these  last-mentioned 
States,  every  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  has  for 
his  constituents  all  the  people  of  the  State ;  and  ah1  the  peo- 
ple of  those  States  are  consequently  represented  in  that  branch 
of  Congress. 

If  the  bill  before  the  Senate  should  pass  into  a  law,  in  its 
present  form,  whatever  injustice  it  might  do  to  any  of  those 
States,  it  would  not  be  correct  to  say  of  them,  nevertheless,  that 
any  portion  of  their  people  was  unrepresented.  The  well-founded 
objection  would  be,  as  to  some  of  them  at  least,  that  they  were 
not  adequately,  competently,  fairly  represented ;  that  they  had 
not  as  many  voices  and  as  many  votes  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives as  they  were  entitled  to.  This  would  be  the  objec- 
tion. There  would  be  no  unrepresented  fraction ;  but  the  State, 
as  a  State,  as  a  whole,  would  be  deprived  of  some  part  of  its 
just  rights. 

dn  the  other  hand,  if  the  bill  should  pass  as  it  is  now  pro- 
posed to  be  amended,  there  would  be  no  representation  of  frao 


3S2  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

tions  in  any  State;  for  a  fraction  supposes  a  division  and  a 
remainder.  All  that  could  justly  be  said  would  be,  that  some  of 
these  States,  as  States,  possessed  a  portion  of  legislative  power 
a  little  larger  than  their  exact  right;  as  it  must  be  admitted, 
that,  should  the  bill  pass  unamended,  they  would  possess  of  that 
power  much  less  than  their  exact  right.  The  same  remarks 
are  substantially  true,  if  applied  to  those  States  which  adopt  the 
district  system,  as  most  of  them  do.  In  Missouri,  for  example, 
there  will  be  no  fraction  unrepresented,  should  the  bill  become  a 
law  in  its  present  form ;  nor  any  member  for  a  fraction,  should 
the  amendment  prevail.  Because  the  mode  of  apportionment 
which  is  nearest  to  its  exact  right  applies  no  assumed  ratios, 
makes  no  subdivisions,  and,  of  course,  produces  no  fractions. 
In  the  one  case,  or  in  the  other,  the  State,  as  a  State,  will  have 
something  more,  or  something  less,  than  its  exact  proportion  of 
representative  power ;  but  she  will  part  out  this  power  among 
her  own  people,  in  either  case,  in  such  mode  as  she  may  choose, 
or  exercise  it  altogether  as  an  entire  representation  of  the  people 
of  the  State. 

Whether  the  subdivision  of  the  representative  power  within 
any  State,  if  there  be  a  subdivision,  be  equal  or  unequal,  or 
fairly  or  unfairly  made,  Congress  cannot  know,  and  has  no  au- 
thority to  inquire.  It  is  enough  that  the  State  presents  her  own 
representation  on  the  floor  of  Congress  in  the  mode  she  chooses 
to  present  it.  If  a  State  were  to  give  to  one  portion  of  her 
territory  a  Representative  for  every  twenty-five  thousand  per- 
sons, and  to  the  rest  a  Representative  only  for  every  fifty  thou- 
sand, it  would  be  an  act  of  unjust  legislation,  doubtless ;  but  it 
would  be  wholly  beyond  redress  by  any  power  in  Congress,  be- 
cause the  Constitution  has  left  ah1  this  to  the  State  itself. 

These  considerations,  it  is  thought,  may  show  that  the  Con- 
stitution has  not,  by  any  implication  or  necessary  construction, 
enjoined  that  which  it  certainly  has  not  ordained  in  terms, 
namely,  that  every  member  of  the  House  should  be  supposed  to 
represent  the  same  number  of  constituents ;  and  therefore,  that 
the  assumption  of  a  ratio,  as  representing  the  common  number 
of  constituents,  is  not  called  for  by  the  Constitution.  All  that 
Congress  is  at  liberty  to  do,  as  it  would  seem,  is  to  divide  the 
whole  representative  power  of  the  Union  into  twenty-four  parts, 
Assigning  one  part  to  each  State,  as  near  as  practicable  accord- 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION.  383 

ing  to  its  right,  and  leaving  all  subsequent  arrangement,  and  all 
subdivisions,  to  ,the  State  itself. 

If  the  view  thus  taken  of  the  rights  of  the  States  and  the  du- 
ties of  Congress  be  the  correct  view,  then  the  plan  proposed  in 
the  amendment  is  in  no  just  sense  a  representation  of  fractions. 
But  suppose  it  was  otherwise ;  suppose  a  direct  provision  were 
made  for  allowing  a  Representative  to  every  State  in  whose 
population,  it  being  first  divided  by  a  common  ratio,  there 
should  be  found  a  fraction  exceeding  half  the  amount  of  that 
ratio,  what  constitutional  objection  could  be  fairly  urged  against 
such  a  provision  ?  Let  it  always  be  remembered,  that  the  case 
here  supposed  provides  only  for  a  fraction  exceeding  the  moiety 
of  the  ratio;  for  the  committee  admit  at  once  that  the  repre- 
sentation of  fractions  less  than  a  moiety  is  unconstitutional; 
because,  should  a  member  be  allowed  to  a  State  for  such  a  frac- 
tion, it  would  be  certain  that  her  representation  would  not  be  so 
near  her  exact  right  as  it  was  before.  But  the  allowance  of  a 
member  for  a  major  fraction  is  a  direct  approximation  towards 
justice  and  equality.  There  appears  to  the  committee  to  be 
nothing,  either  in  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  op- 
posed to  such  a  mode  of  apportionment.  On  the  contrary,  it 
seems  entirely  consistent  with  the  very  object  which  the  Consti- 
tution contemplated,  and  well  calculated  to  accomplish  it.  The 
argument  commonly  urged  against  it  is,  that  it  is  necessary  to 
apply  some  one  common  divisor,  and  to  abide  by  its  results. 

If  by  this  it  be  meant  that  there  must  be  some  common  rule, 
or  common  measure,  applicable,  and  applied  impartially,  to  all 
the  States,  it  is  quite  true.  But  if  that  which  is  intended  be, 
that  the  population  of  each  State  must  be  divided  by  a  fixed 
ratio,  and  all  resulting  fractions,  great  or  small,  disregarded,  this 
is  but  to  take  for  granted  the  very  thing  in  controversy.  The 
question  is,  whether  it  be  unconstitutional  to  make  approxima- 
tion to  equality  by  allowing  Representatives  for  major  fractions. 
The  affirmative  of  this  question  is,  indeed,  denied,  but  it  is  not 
disproved,  by  saying  that  we  must  abide  by  the  operation  of  di- 
vision by  an  assumed  ratio,  and  disregard  fractions.  The  ques- 
tion still  remains  as  it  was  before,  and  it  is  still  to  be  shown 
what  there  is  in  the  Constitution  which  rejects  approximation 
as  the  rule  of  apportionment. 

But  suppose  it  to  be  necessary  to  find  a  divisor,  and  to  abide 


384  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

its  results.  What  is  a  divisor?  Not  necessarily  a  simple  num- 
ber. It  may  be  composed  of  a  whole  number  and  a  fraction ; 
it  may  itself  be  the  result  of  a  previous  process;  it  may  be 
any  thing,  in  short,  which  produces  accurate  and  uniform  divis- 
ion. Whatever  does  this  is  a  common  rule,  a  common  stand- 
ard, or,  if  the  word  be  important,  a  common  divisor.  The  com- 
mittee refer,  on  this  part  of  the  case,  to  some  observations  by 
Professor  Dean,  with  a  table,  both  of  which  accompany  this 
report. 

As  it  is  not  improbable  that  opinion  has  been  a  good  deal  in- 
fluenced on  this  subject  by  what  took  place  on  the  passing  of 
the  first  act  making  an  apportionment  of  Representatives  among 
the  States,  the  committee  have  examined  and  considered  that 
precedent.  If  it  be  in  point  to  the  present  case,  it  is  certainly 
entitled  to  very  great  weight ;  but  if  it  be  of  questionable  appli- 
cation, the  text  of  the  Constitution,  even  if  it  were  doubtful, 
cannot  be  explained  by  a  doubtful  commentary.  In  the  opin- 
ion of  the  committee,  it  is  only  necessary  that  what  was  said  on 
this  occasion  should  be  understood  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject-matter then  under  consideration ;  and  in  order  to  see  what 
that  subject-matter  really  was,  the  committee  think  it  necessary 
shortly  to  state  the  case. 

The  two  houses  of  Congress  passed  a  bill,  after  the  first  enu- 
meration of  the  people,  providing  for  a  House  of  Representatives 
which  should  consist  of  120  members.  The  bill  expressed  no 
rule  or  principle  by  which  these  members  were  assigned  to  the 
several  States.  It  merely  said  that  New  Hampshire  should 
have  five  members,  Massachusetts  ten,  and  so  on ;  going  through 
all  the  States,  and  assigning  the  whole  number  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty.  Now,  by  the  census  then  recently  taken,  it  ap- 
peared that  the  whole  representative  population  of  the  United 
States  was  3,615,920 ;  and  it  was  evidently  the  wish  of  Congress 
to  make  the  House  as  numerous  as  the  Constitution  would 
allow.  But  the  Constitution  provides  that  there  shall  not  be 
more  than  one  member  for  every  thirty  thousand  persons. 

This  prohibition  was,  of  couse,  to  be  obeyed;  but  did  the 
Constitution  mean  that  no  State  should  have  more  than  one 
member  for  every  thirty  thousand  persons?  Or  did  it  only 
mean  that  the  whole  House,  as  compared  with  the  whole  popu- 
]ation  of  the  United  States,  should  not  contain  more  than  one 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION.  385 

member  for  every  thirty  thousand  persons  ?  If  this  last  were 
the  true  construction,  then  the  bill,  in  that  particular,  was  right; 
if  the  first  were  the  true  construction,  then  it  was  wrong ;  be- 
cause so  many  members  could  not  be  assigned  to  the  States, 
without  giving  to  some  of  them  more  members  than  one  for 
every  thirty  thousand.  In  (act,  the  bill  did  propose  to  do  this  in 
regard  to  several  States. 

President  Washington  adopted  that  construction  of  the  Con- 
stitution which  applied  its  prohibition  to  each  State  individ  nally. 
He  thought  that  no  State  could  constitutionally  receive  more 
than  one  member  for  every  thirty  thousand  of  her  population. 
On  this,  therefore,  his  main  objection  to  the  bill  was  founded. 
That  objection  he  states  in  these  words :  — 

"  The  Constitution  has  also  provided  that  the  number  of  Rep- 
resentatives shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thousand ; 
which  restriction  is,  by  the  context,  and  by  fair  and  obvious  con- 
struction, to  be  applied  to  the  separate  and  respective  numbers 
of  the  States ;  and  the  bill  has  allotted  to  eight  of  the  States 
more  than  one  for  every  thirty  thousand." 

It  is  now  necessary  to  see  what  there  was  further  objection- 
able in  this  bill.  The  number  of  one  hundred  and  twelve  mem- 
bers was  all  that  could  be  divided  among  the  States,  without 
giving  to  some  of  them  more  than  one  member  for  thirty  thou- 
sand inhabitants.  Therefore,  having  allotted  these  one  hundred 
and  twelve,  there  still  remained  eight  of  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty  to  be  assigned ;  and  these  eight  the  bill  assigned  to  the 
States  having  the  largest  fractions.  Some  of  these  fractions 
were  large,  and  some  were  small.  No  regard  was  paid  to  frac- 
tions over  a  moiety  of  the  ratio,  any  more  than  to  fractions 
under  it.  There  was  no  rule  laid  down,  stating  what  fractions 
should  entitle  the  States  to  whom  they  might  happen  to  fall,  or 
in  whose  population  they  might  happen  to  be  found,  to  a  Repre- 
sentative therefor.  The  assignment  was  not  made  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  each  State  should  have  a  member  for  a  fraction  greater 
than  half  the  ratio ;  or  that  all  the  States  should  have  a  member 
for  a  fraction,  in  all  cases  where  the  allowance  of  such  member 
would  bring  her  representation  nearer  to  its  exact  proportion 
than  its  disallowance.  There  was  no  common  measure  or  com- 
mon rule  adopted,  but  the  assignment  was  matter  of  arbitrary 
discretion.  A  member  was  allowed  to  New  Hampshire,  for  e.x- 

VOL.  in.  33 


386  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

ample,  for  a  fraction  of  less  than  one  half  the  ratio;  thus  placing 
her  representation  farther  from  her  exact  proportion  than  it  was 
without  such  additional  member;  while  a  member  was  refused 
to  Georgia,  whose  case  closely  resembled  that  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, both  having  what  were  thought  large  fractions,  but  both 
still  under  a  moiety  of  the  ratio,  and  distinguished  from  each 
other  only  by  a  very  slight  difference  of  absolute  numbers.  The 
committee  have  already  fully  expressed  their  opinion  on  such  a 
mode  of  apportionment. 

In  regard  to  this  character  of  the  bill,  President  "Washington 
said :  "  The  Constitution  has  prescribed  that  Representatives 
shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  according  to  their 
respective  numbers ;  and  there  is  no  one  proportion  or  divisor, 
which,  applied  to  the  respective  numbers  of  the  States,  will 
yield  the  number  and  allotment  of  Representatives  proposed  by 
the  bill." 

This  was  all  undoubtedly  true,  and  was,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  committee,  a  decisive  objection  against  the  bill.  It  is,  never- 
theless, to  be  observed,  that  the  other  objection  completely  cov- 
ered the  whole  ground.  There  could,  in  that  bill,  be  no  allowance 
for  a  fraction,  great  or  small;  because  Congress  had  taken  for 
the  ratio  the  lowest  number  allowed  by  the  Constitution,  viz. 
thirty  thousand.  Whatever  fraction  a  State  might  have  less 
than  that  ratio,  no  member  could  be  allowed  for  it.  It  is  scarce- 
ly necessary  to  observe,  that  no  such  objection  applies  to  the 
amendment  now  proposed.  No  State,  should  the  amendment 
prevail,  will  have  a  greater  number  of  members  than  one  for 
every  thirty  thousand ;  nor  is  it  likely  that  the  objection  will  ever 
again  occur.  The  whole  force  of  the  precedent,  whatever  it  be, 
in  its  application  to  the  present  case,  is  drawn  from  the  other 
objection.  And  what  is  the  true  import  of  that  objection  ? 
Does  it  mean  any  thing  more  than  that  the  apportionment  was 
not  made  on  a  common  rule  or  principle,  applicable  and  ap- 
plied alike  to  all  the  States? 

President  "Washington's  words  are :  "  There  is  no  one  propor- 
tion or  divisor,  which,  applied  to  the  respective  numbers  of  the 
States,  will  yield  the  number  and  allotment  of  Representatives 
proposed  by  the  bill." 

If,  then,  he  could  have'  found  a  common  proportion,  it  would 
have  removed  this  objection.  He  required  a  proportion  or 


APPORTIONMENT  OF   REPRESENTATION.  387 

divisor.  These  words  he  evidently  uses  as  explanatory  of  each 
other.  He  meant  by  divisor,  therefore,  no  more  than  by  propor- 
tion. What  he  sought  was  some  common  arid  equal  rule,  by 
which  the  allotment  had  been  made  among  the  several  States ; 
he  did  not  find  such  common  rule ;  and,  on  that  ground,  he 
thought  the  bill  objectionable. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  no  such  objection  applies  to 
the  amendment  recommended  by  them.  That  amendment  gives 
a  rule,  plain,  simple,  just,  uniform,  and  of  universal  application. 
The  rule  has  been  frequently  stated.  It  may  be  clearly  expressed 
in  either  of  two  ways.  Let  the  rule  be,  that  the  whole  number 
of  the  proposed  House  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  giving  to  each  Slate 
that  number  of  members  which  comes  nearest  to  her  exact  mathe- 
matical part  or  proportion  ;  or  let  the  rule  be,  that  the  population 
of  each  State  shall  be  divided  by  a  common  divisor,  and,  in 
addition  to  the  number  of  members  resulting1  from  such  division, 
a  member  shall  be  allowed  to  each  State  whose  fraction  exceeds  a 
moiety  of  the  divisor. 

Either  of  these  is,  it  seems  to  the  committee,  a  fair  and  just 
rule,  capable  of  uniform  application,  and  operating  with  entire 
impartiality.  There  is  no  want  of  a  common  proportion,  or  a 
common  divisor;  there  is  nothing  left  to  arbitrary  discretion.  If 
the  rule,  in  either  of  these  forms,  be  adopted,  it  can  never  be 
doubtful  how  every  member  of  any  proposed  number  for  a  House 
of  Representatives  ought  to  be  assigned.  Nothing  will  be  left 
in  the  discretion  of  Congress ;  the  right  of  each  State  will  be  a 
mathematical  right,  easily  ascertained,  about  which  there  can  be 
neither  doubt  nor  difficulty ;  and,  in  the  application  of  the  rule, 
there  will  be  no  room  for  preference,  partiality,  or  injustice.  In 
any  case,  in  all  time  to  come,  it  will  do  all  that  human  means 
can  do  to  allot  to  every  State  in  the  Union  its  proper  and  just 
proportion  of  representative  power.  And  it  is  because  of  this, 
its  capability  of  constant  application,  as  well  as  because  of  its 
impartiality  and  justice,  that  the  committee  are  earnest  in  rec- 
ommending its  adoption  by  Congress.  If  it  shall  be  adopted, 
they  believe  it  will  remove  a  cause  of  uneasiness  and  dissatis- 
faction, recurring,  or  liable  to  recur,  with  every  new  census,  and 
place  the  rights  of  the  States,  in  this  respect,  on  a  fixed  basis, 
of  which  none  can  with  reason  complain.  It  is  true,  that  there 


388  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

may  be  some  numbers  assumed  for  the  composition  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  to  which,  if  the  rule  were  applied, 
the  result  might  give  a  member  to  the  House  more  than  was 
proposed.  But  it  will  be  always  easy  to  correct  this  by  altering 
the  proposed  number  by  adding  one  to  it,  or  taking  one  from  it; 
so  that  this  can  be  considered  no  objection  to  the  rule. 

The  committee,  in  conclusion,  cannot  admit  that  it  is  suffi- 
cient reason  for  rejecting  this  mode  of  apportionment,  that  a  dif- 
ferent process  has  heretofore  prevailed.  The  truth  is,  the  errors 
and  inequalities  of  that  process  were  at  first  not  obvious  and 
startling.  But  they  have  gone  on  increasing;  they  are  greatly 
augmented  and  accumulated  at  every  new  census ;  and  it  is  of 
the  very  nature  of  the  process  itself,  that  its  unjust  results  must 
grow  greater  and  greater  in  proportion  as  the  population  of  the 
country  enlarges.  What  was  objectionable,  though  tolerable, 
yesterday,  becomes  intolerable  to-morrow.  A  change,  the  com- 
mittee are  persuaded,  must  come,  or  the  whole  just  balance  and 
proportion  of  representative  power  among  the  States  will  be  dis- 
turbed and  broken  up. 


APPENDIX. 

(See  p.  384.) 

Extract  of  a  Letter  from  Professor  James  Dean. 

"  I  cannot  express  my  rule  so  densely  and  perspicuously  as  I  could 
wish  ;  but  its  meaning  is,  that  each  State  shall  have  such  a  number  of 
Representatives,  that  the  population  for  each  shall  be  the  nearest  possi- 
ble, whether  over  or  under,  to  [  ].  The  number  for  each  State  may 
be  ascertained  thus :  Divide  the  representative  number  by  the  number 
assumed  to  fill  the  blank,  disregarding  the  remainder;  the  quotient,  or 
the  next  greater  number,  will  be  the  number  of  Representatives.  In 
order  to  determine  which  is  the  proper  one,  divide  the  representative 
number  of  the  State  by  the  two  numbers  separately,  then  subtract  the 
least  quotient  from  the  assumed  number,  and  the  assumed  number  from 
,he  other  quotient ;  and  that  from  which  results  the  least  remainder  is 
the  number  of  Representatives  for  the  State." 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 


389 


The  foregoing  rule  is  illustrated  thus  :  The  population  of  Maine, 
for  instance,  which  is  399,435,  being  divided  by  47,700,  the  ratio  as- 
sumed in  the  bill  from  the  House  of  Representatives,  gives  a  quotient 
of  8 ;  the  population  being  then  divided  by  8,  the  quotient  is  49,929  ; 
divide  by  9,  the  next  higher  number,  the  quotient  is  44,381. 

The  following  table  exhibits  the  results  in  the  several  States,  accord- 
ing to  this  process. 


^_ 

• 

S 

o 

§1 

3 

o 

» 

I 

i 

Jrf 

il 

o. 

£ 

S, 

It 

£* 

cd  <S 

^  o 

(S  8 

*g 

•-•§ 

States. 

wS 

v-.i 

'   E^~ 

CST 

Is 

•gl 

J3 

M 

1* 

E  o 

if 

g 

l~ 

3 

* 

3 

3 

JP 

Maine,          

399,435 

8 

49,929 

9 

44,381 

8 

New  Hampshire, 

269.326 

6 

44,887 

5 

53,805 

5 

Massachusetts,     . 

610,407 

13 

46,954 

12 

50,867 

12 

Rhode  Island,  .... 

97,194 

2 

48,599 

3 

32,333 

2 

Connecticut,         . 

297,665 

6 

49,610 

7 

42,523 

6 

Vermont,          .... 

280,657 

6 

48,776 

5 

56,132 

5 

New  York,   

1.918,553 

40 

47,964 

41 

46,794 

40 

New  Jersey,     .... 

319,922 

7 

45,970 

6 

33,320 

6 

Pennsylvania,      . 

1,348,072 

28 

46,145 

29 

46,485 

28. 

Delaware,         .... 

75,432 

2 

37,716 

1 

75,432 

1 

405.843 

9 

45,049 

8 

50,435 

8 

Virginia,  .         .         .         ... 

1,023,503 

21 

48,738 

22 

45,613 

21 

North  Carolina,   .... 

639,747 

13 

49,211 

14 

45,669 

13 

South  Carolina, 

455,025 

10 

45,502 

9 

50,558 

9 

429,811 

9 

47,746 

10 

42,981 

9 

621,832 

13 

47,833 

14 

44,416 

13 

625,263 

13 

48,097 

14 

44,061 

13 

Ohio         

935,882 

20 

46,794 

19 

49,251 

19 

343,030 

7 

49,004 

8 

42,878 

7 

Mississippi,       .... 

110,358 

2 

55,129 

3 

36,766 

2 

157,147 

3 

52,362 

4 

39.283 

3 

Louisiana,         .... 

17l',904 

4 

42,927 

3 

57,301 

3 

Missouri,      

130,419 

3 

43,473 

2 

65,209 

2 

Alabama,          .... 

262,508 

6 

43,751 

5 

52,501 

5 

Totals,    

11,928,054 

251 

.... 

253 

.... 

240 

NOTE.  —  The  principle  laid  down  by  Professor  Dean  appears  to  be 
this  :  Each  State  should  have  that  share  of  representation  which  bears 
the  nearest  possible  proportion  to  the  ratio  assumed. 

Thus  Massachusetts,  with  610,000  people,  if  the  ratio  be  47,700, 
should  have  13  Representatives,  because  13  bears  the  nearest  possible 
proportion  to  47,700. 

As  13  is  to  1,  so  is  610,000  to  46,923. 
As  12  is  to  1,  so  is  610,000  to  50,833. 

The  first  result,  or  46,923,  is  nearer  to  47,700,  the  assumed  ratio, 
than  the  last  result,  or  50,833.     The  number  13,  therefore,  is  more 
33* 


390  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

nearly  apportioned  to  the  assumed  ratio  than  12 ;  and  further  trial  of 
numbers  will  prove  it  to  bear  the  nearest  possible  proportion  to  47,700. 

Mr.  Dean  considers  that,  the  ratio  being  assumed,  the  number  of  the 
House,  and  of  each  State's  share  of  representation,  should  be  appor- 
tioned to  the  ratio.  The  error  of  the  bill  is  thus  shown  ;  its  ratio  bears 
no  proportion,  either  to  the  whole  number  of  the  House,  or  to  the  re- 
spective quotas  of  representation  of  the  several  States.  Its  ratio  is  arbi- 
trary, and  its  proposed  number  of  this  House  is  arbitrary ;  that  is,  the 
number  is  not  to  be  found  by  any  process.  The  necessary  consequence 
is,  that  no  State's  share  of  the  House  is  found  by  any  rule  of  proportion. 

The  number  of  the  House  being  fixed,  the  ratio  should  be  found  by 
proportion.  As  241,  e.  g.  :  1  :  :  11,928,054  :  49,494. 

Thus,  for  a  House  of  241,  the  true  ratio  is  found  to  be  49,494;  then, 
by  the  rule  of  Professor  Dean,  each  State  is  entitled  to  that  number  of 
Representatives  which,  when  divided  into  its  whole  federative  popula- 
tion, produces  a  quotient  or  ratio  approximating  nearest  to  the  true  ratio, 
49,494 ;  in  other  words,  each  State  is  entitled  to  that  number  of  Repre- 
sentatives which  bears  the  nearest  possible  proportion  to  the  true  ratio. 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.* 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  though  I  am  entirely  satisfied  with  the  gen- 
eral view  taken  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,^  and  with  his 
explanation  of  the  details  of  the  bill,  yet  there  are  a  few  topics 
upon  which  I  desire  to  offer  some  remarks ;  and  if  no  other  gen- 
tleman wishes  at  present  to  address  the  Senate,  I  will  avail  my- 
self of  this  opportunity. 

A  considerable  portion  of  the  active  part  of  life  has  elapsed, 
since  you  and  I,  Mr.  President,^  and  three  or  four  other  gentle- 
men, now  in  the  Senate,  acted  our  respective  parts  in  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill  creating  the  present  Bank  of  the  United  States. 
We  have  lived  to  little  purpose,  as  public  men,. if  the  experience 
of  this  period  has  not  enlightened  our  judgments,  and  enabled 
us  to  revise  our  opinions,  and  to  correct  any  errors  into  which 
we  may  have  fallen,  if  such  errors  there  were,  either  in  regard  to 
the  general  utility  of  a  national  bank,  or  the  details  of  its  con- 
stitution. I  trust  it  will  not  be  unbecoming  the  occasion,  if  I 
allude  to  your  own  important  agency  in  that  transaction.  The 
bill  incorporating  the  bank,  and  giving  it  a  constitution,  proceed- 
ed from  a  committee  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  which 
you  were  chairman,  and  was  conducted  through  that  House 
under  your  distinguished  lead.  Having  recently  looked  back  to 
the  proceedings  of  that  day,  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  that  I 
have  perused  the  speech  by  which  the  subject  was  introduced  to 
the  consideration  of  the  House,  with  a  revival  of  the  feeling  of 
approbation  and  pleasure  with  which  I  heard  it ;  and  I  will  add, 
that  it  would  not,  perhaps,  now  be  easy  to  find  a  better  brief 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  on  the  25th  of  May,  1832,  on  the  Bill  for 
renewing  the  Charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
f  Mr.  Dallas, 
j  Mr.  Calhoun,  at  that  time  V ice-President  of  the  United  States. 


392  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

synopsis  than  that  speech  contains,  of  those  principles  of  curren. 
cy  and  of  banking,  which,  since  they  spring  from  the  nature  of 
money  and  of  commerce,  must  be  essentially  the  same  at  all 
times,  in  all  commercial  communities.  The  other  gentlemen 
now  with  us  in  the  Senate,  all  of  them,  I  believe,  concurred  with 
the  chairman  of  the  committee,  and  voted  for  the  bill.  My  own 
vote  was  against  it.  This  is  a  matter  of  little  importance ;  but 
it  is  connected  with  other  circumstances,  to  which  I  will  for  a 
moment  advert.  The  gentlemen  with  whom  I  acted  on  that 
occasion  had  no  doubts  of  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress 
to  establish  a  national  bank ;  nor  had  we  any  doubts  of  the  gen- 
eral utility  of  an  institution  of  that  kind.  We  had,  indeed, 
most  of  us,  voted  for  a  bank,  at  a  preceding  session.  But  the 
object  of  our  regard  was  not  whatever  might  be  called  a  bank. 
We  required  that  it  should  be  established  on  certain  principles, 
which  alone  we  deemed  safe  and  useful,  made  subject  to  certain 
fixed  liabilities,  and  so  guarded,  that  it  could  neither  move  vol- 
untarily, nor  be  moved  by  others,  out  of  its  proper  sphere  of 
action.  The  bill,  when  first  introduced,  contained  features  to 
which  we  should  never  have  assented,  and  we  accordingly  set 
ourselves  to  work,  with  a  good  deal  of  zeal,  in  order  to  effect 
sundry  amendments.  In  some  of  these  proposed  amendments, 
the  chairman,  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  finally  concurred. 
Others  they  opposed.  The  result  was,  that  several  most  impor- 
tant amendments,  as  I  thought,  prevailed.  But  there  still  re- 
mained, in  my  opinion,  objections  to  the  bill,  which  justified  a 
persevering  opposition,  till  they  should  be  removed. 

The  first  objection  was  to  the  magnitude  of  the  capital.  In 
its  original  form,  the  bill  provided  for  a  capital  of  thirty-five 
millions,  with  a  power  in  Congress  to  increase  it  to  fifty  millions. 
This  latter  provision  was  struck  out  on  the  motion  of  a  very 
intelligent  gentleman  from  New  York,*  and  I  believe,  Sir,  with 
your  assent.  But  I  was  of  opinion  that  a  capital  of  thirty-five 
millions  was  more  than  was  called  for  by  the  circumstances  of 
the  country.  The  capital  of  the  first  bank  was  but  ten  millions  ; 
and  it  had  not  been  shown  to  be  too  small ;  and  there  certainly 
was  no  good  ground  to  say,  that  the  business  or  the  wants  of 
the  country  had  grown,  in  the  mean  time,  in  the  proportion  of 

*  Mr.  Cady. 


BANK   OF  THE   UNITED   STATES.  39o 

thirty-five  to  ten.  But  the  state  of  things  has  now  become 
changed.  A  greatly  increased  population,  and  a  greatly  ex- 
tended commercial  activity,  especially  in  the  West  and  South- 
west, evidently  require  an  enlarged  capacity  in  the  national 
bank.  The  capital,  therefore,  is  less  disproportionate  to  the 
occasion  than  it  was  sixteen  years  ago ;  and  whatever  of  dis- 
proportion may  be  thought  still  to  exist  will  be  constantly  de- 
creasing. The  augmentation  of  banking  capital  in  State  insti- 
tutions is  by  no  means  a  reason  for  reducing  the  capital  of  this 
bank.  At  first  view,  there  might  appear  to  be  some  reason  in 
such  a  suggestion ;  but  I  think  further  reflection  on  the  duties 
expected  to  be  performed  by  the  bank,  in  relation  to  the  general 
currency  of  the  country,  will  show  that  suggestion  not  to  be 
well  founded.  On  the  whole,  I  am  disposed  to  continue  the 
capital  as  it  is. 

There  was  another  objection.  The  bill  had  divided  the  stock 
into  shares  of  one  hundred  dollars  each,  not  of  four  hundred 
dollars  each,  as  in  the  first  bank ;  and  it  had  established  such  a 
scale  of  voting  by  the  stockholders,  as  showed  it  to  be  quite 
practicable  for  a  minority  in  interest  to  control  all  elections,  and 
to  seize  on  the  entire  direction  of  the  bank.  It  was  on  this  very 
ground,  and  under  the  apprehension  of  this  very  evil,  that  the 
last  attempt  to  amend  the  bill,  made  by  me,  proceeded.  That 
attempt  was  a  motion  to  diminish  the  number  of  shares,  by 
raising  the  amount  of  each  from  one  hundred  dollars  to  four 
hundred. 

There  was  yet  one  other  provision  of  the  bill,  which  was  re- 
garded as  unnecessary  and  objectionable.  That  was,  the  power 
reserved  to  the  government  of  appointing  five  of  the  directors. 
We  had  no  experience  of  our  own  of  the  effect  of  such  govern- 
ment interference  in  the  direction  of  the  bank;  and  in  other 
countries  it  had  been  found  that  such  connection  between  gov- 
ernment and  banking  institutions  produced  nothing  but  evil. 
The  credit  of  banks  has  generally  been  very  much  in  proportion 
to  their  independence  of  government  control.  While  acting  on 
true  commercial  principles,  they  are  useful  both  to  government 
and  people ;  but  the  history  of  the  principal  moneyed  institu- 
tions of  Europe  has  demonstrated,  that  their  efficiency  and 
stability  consist  very  much  in  their  freedom  from  all  subjection 
to  State  interests  and  State  necessities.  The  real  safety  to  the 


394  BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

public  lies  in  the  restraints  and  liabilities  imposed  oy  law,  and 
in  the  interest  which  the  proprietors  themselves  have  in  a  ju- 
dicious management  of  the  affairs  of  the  corporation.  I  will 
only  say,  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  that  it  is  unquestionably 
true,  that  the  successful  career  of  this  institution  commenced, 
when  its  stock,  leaving  the  hands  of  speculation,  came  to  be 
owned,  for  the  common  purposes  of  investment,  by  such  as  were 
in  possession  of  capital  to  invest,  and  when  the  proprietors  ex- 
ercised their  proper  discretion  in  constituting  their  part  of  the 
direction  with  a  single  view  of  giving  to  the  bank  a  safe  and 
competent  administration. 

The  question  now  is,  Sir,  whether  this  institution  shall  be  con- 
tinued. We  ought  to  treat  it  as  a  great  public  subject;  to  con- 
sider it,  like  statesmen,  as  it  regards  the  great  interests  of  the 
country,  and  with  as  little  mixture  as  possible  of  all  minor 
motives. 

The  influence  of  the  bank,  Mr.  President,  on  the  interests  of 
the  government,  and  the  interests  of  the  people,  may  be  consid- 
ered in  several  points  of  view.  It  may  be  regarded  as  it  affects 
the  currency  of  the  country ;  as  it  affects  the  collection  and  dis« 
bursement  of  the  public  revenue;  as  it  respects  foreign  ex- 
changes ;  as  it  respects  domestic  exchanges ;  and  as  it  affects, 
either  generally  or  locally,  the  agriculture,  commerce,  and  manu- 
factures of  the  Union. 

First,  as  to  the  currency  of  the  country.  This  is,  at  all  times, 
a  most  important  political  object.  A  sound  currency  is  an  essen- 
tial and  indispensable  security  for  the  fruits  of  industry  and  hon- 
est enterprise.  Every  man  of  property  or  industry,  every  man 
who  desires  to  preserve  what  he  honestly  possesses,  or  to  obtain 
what  he  can  honestly  earn,  has  a  direct  interest  in  maintaining 
a  safe  circulating  medium ;  such  a  medium  as  shall  be  a  real 
and  substantial  representative  of  property,  not  liable  to  vibrate 
with  opinions,  not  subject  to  be  blown  up  or  blown  down  by 
the  breath  of  speculation,  but  made  stable  and  secure  by  its  im- 
mediate relation  to  that  which  the  whole  world  regards  as  of  a 
permanent  value.  A  disordered  currency  is  one  of  the  greatest 
of  political  evils.  It  undermines  the  virtues  necessary  for  the 
support  of  the  social  system,  and  encourages  propensities  de- 
structive of  its  happiness.  It  wars  against  industry,  frugality, 
and  economy ;  and  it  fosters  the  evil  spirits  of  extravagance  and 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  395 

speculation.  Of  all  the  contrivances  for  cheating  the  laboring 
classes  of  mankind,  none  has  been  more  effectual  than  that 
which  deludes  them  with  paper  money.  This  is  the  most  effec- 
tual of  inventions  to  fertilize  the  rich  man's  field  by  the  sweat 
of  the  poor  man's  brow.  Ordinary  tyranny,  oppression,  exces- 
sive taxation,  these  bear  lightly  on  the  happiness  of  the  mass  of 
the  community,  compared  with  a  fraudulent  currency,  and  the 
robberies  committed  by  depreciated  paper.  Our  own  history 
has  recorded  for  our  instruction  enough,  and  more  than  enough, 
of  the  demoralizing  tendency,  the  injustice,  and  the  intolerable 
oppression  on  the  virtuous  and  well  disposed,  of  a  degraded 
paper  currency,  authorized  by  law,  or  in  any  way  countenanced 
by  government. 

We  all  know,  Sir,  that  the  establishment  of  a  sound  and  uni- 
form currency  was  one  of  the  great  ends  contemplated  in  the 
adoption  of  the  present  Constitution.  If  we  could  now  fully  ex- 
plore all  the  motives  of  those  who  framed  and  those  who  sup- 
ported that  Constitution,  perhaps  we  should  hardly  find  a  more 
powerful  one  than  this.  The  object,  indeed,  is  sufficiently  prom- 
inent on  the  face  of  the  Constitution  itself.  It  cannot  well  be 
questioned,  that  it  was  intended  by  that  Constitution  to  submit 
tne  whole  subject  of  the  currency  of  the  country,  all  that  re- 
gards the  actual  medium  of  payment  and  exchange,  whatever 
that  should  be,  to  the  control  and  legislation  of  Congress.  Con- 
gress can  alone  coin  money ;  Congress  can  alone  fix  the  value 
of  foreign  coins.  No  State  can  coin  money;  no  State  can 
fix  the  vajue  of  foreign  coins;  no  State  (nor  even  Congress 
itself)  can  make  any  thing  a  tender  but  gold  and  silver,  in  the 
payment  of  debts ;  no  State  can  emit  bills  of  credit.  The  ex- 
clusive power  of  regulating  the  metallic  currency  of  the  country 
would  seem  necessarily  to  imply,  or,  more  properly,  to  include, 
as  part  of  itself,  a  power  to  decide  how  far  that  currency  should  - 
be  exclusive,  how  far  any  substitute  should  interfere  with  it,  and 
what  that  substitute  should  be.  The  generality  and  extent  of 
the  power  granted  to  Congress,  and  the  clear  and  well-defined 
prohibitions  on  the  States,  leave  little  doubt  of  an  intent  to  res- 
cue the  whole  subject  of  currency  from  the  hands  of  local  legis- 
lation, and  to  confer  it  on  the  general  government.  But,  not- 
withstanding this  apparent  purpose  in  the  Constitution,  the 
truth  is,  that  the  currency  of  the  country  is  now,  to  a  very  great 


396  BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

extent,  practically  and  effectually  under  the  control  of  the  sev- 
eral State  governments ;  if  it  be  not  more  correct  to  say,  that  it 
is  under  the  control  of  the  banking  institutions  created  by  the 
States ;  for  the  States  seem  first  to  have  taken  possession  of  the 
power,  and  then  to  have,  delegated  it 

Whether  the  States  can  constitutionally  exercise  this  power, 
or  delegate  it  to  others,  is  a  question  which  I  do  not  intend,  at 
present,  either  to  concede  or  to  argue.  It  is  much  to  be  hoped, 
that  no  controversy  on  the  point  may  ever  become  necessary. 
But  it  is  matter  highly  deserving  of  consideration,  that,  although 
clothed  by  the  Constitution  with  exclusive  power  over  the  me- 
tallic currency,  Congress,  unless  through  the  agency  of  a  bank 
established  by  its  authority,  has  no  control  whatever  over  that 
which,  in  the  character  of  a  mere  representative  of  the  metallic 
currency,  fills  up  almost  all  the  channels  of  pecuniary  circulation. 

In  the  absence  of  a  Bank  of  the  United  States,  the  State 
banks  become  effectually  the  regulators  of  the  public  currency. 
Their  numbers,  their  capital,  and  the  interests  connected  with 
them,  give  them,  in  that  state  of  things,  a  power  which  nothing 
is  competent  to  control.  We  saw,  therefore,  when  the  late  war 
broke  out,  and  when  there  was  no  national  bank  in  being,  that 
the  State  institutions,  of  their  own  authority,  and  by  an  under- 
standing among  themselves,  under  the  gentle  phrase  of  suspend- 
ing specie  payments,  everywhere  south  of  New  England  re- 
fused payment  of  their  notes,  and  thus  filled  the  country  with 
irredeemable  and  degraded  paper.  They  were  not  called  to  an- 
swer for  this  violation  of  their  charters,  as  far  as  I  remember,  in 
any  one  State.  They  pleaded  the  urgency  of  the  occasion,  and 
the  public  distresses ;  and  in  this  apology  the  State  govern- 
ments acquiesced.  Congress,  at  the  same  time,  found  itself  in 
an  awkward  predicament.  It  held  the  whole  power  over  coins. 
No  State  or  State  institution  could  give  circulation  to  an  ounce 
of  gold  or  of  silver,  not  sanctioned  by  Congress.  Yet  all  the 
States,  and  a  hundred  State  institutions,  claimed  and  exercised 
the  right  of  driving  coin  out  of  circulation  by  the  introduction  of 
their  own  paper ;  and  then  of  depreciating  and  degrading  that 
paper,  by  refusing  to  redeem  it.  As  they  were  not  institutions 
created  by  this  government,  they  were  not  answerable  to  it. 
Congress  could  not  call  them  to  account,  and  if  it  could,  Con- 
gress had  no  bank  of  its  own,  whose  circulation  could  supply  the 


BANK.  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  307 

wants  of  the  community.  Coin,  the  substantial  constituent,  was, 
and  was  admitted  to  be,  subject  only  to  the  control  of  Congress; 
but  paper,  assuming  to  be  a  representative  of  this  constituent, 
was  taking  great  liberties  with  it,  at  the  same  time  that  it  was 
no  way  amenable  to  its  constitutional  guardian.  This  suspen- 
sion of  specie  payments  was  of  course  immediately  followed  by 
great  depreciation  of  the  paper.  It  shortly  fell  so  low,  that  a 
bill  on  Boston  could  not  be  purchased  at  Washington  under  an 
advance  of  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  per  cent.  I  do  not  mean 
to  reflect  on  the  proceedings  of  the  State  banks.  Perhaps  their 
best  justification  is  to  be  found  in  the  readiness  with  which  gov- 
ernment itself  borrowed  their  paper  of  them,  depreciated  as  it 
was ;  but  it  certainly  becomes  us  to  consider  attentively  this  part 
of  our  experience,  and  to  guard,  as  far  as  we  can,  against  sim- 
ilar occurrences. 

I  am  of  opinion,  Sir,  that  a  well-conducted  national  bank 
has  an  exceedingly  useful  and  effective  operation  on  the  general 
paper  circulation  of  the  country.  I  think  its  tendency  is  mani- 
festly to  restrain  within  some  bounds  the  paper  issues  of  other 
institutions.  If  it  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  these  institu- 
tions, in  turn,  hold  in  check  the  issues  of  the  national  bank,  so 
much  the  better.  Let  that  check  go  to  its  full  extent.  An  over- 
issue,  even  by  the  bank  itself,  no  one  can  desire.  But%it  is  plain, 
that,  by  holding  State  institutions  which  come  into  immediate 
contact  with  itself  and  its  branches  to  an  accountability  for  their 
issues,  not  yearly  or  quarterly,  but  daily  and  hourly,  an  impor- 
tant restraint  is  exercised.  Be  it  remembered  always,  that  what 
it  is  to  expect  from  others,  it  is  to  perform  itself ;  and  that  its 
own  paper  is  at  all  times  to  turn  into  coin  at  the  first  touch  of 
its  own  counter. 

But,  Mr.  President,  so  important  is  this  object,  that  I  think, 
that,  far  from  diminishing,  we  ought  rather  to  increase  and  mul- 
tiply our  securities ;  and  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that,  even 
with  the  continuance  of  the  bank  charter,  and  under  its  wisest 
administration,  I  regard  the  state  of  our  currency  as  entirely 
safe.  It  is  evident  to  me  that  the  general  paper  circulation  has 
been  extended  too  far  for  the  specie  basis  on  which  it  rests. 
Our  system,  as  a  system,  dispenses  too  far,  in  my  judgment, 
with  the  use  of  gold  and  silver.  Having  learned  the  use  of  pa- 
per as  a  substitute  for  specie,  we  use  the  substitute,  I  fear,  too 

VOL.  in.  34 


S98  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

freely  It  is  true,  that  our  circulating  paper  is  all  redeemable  in 
gold  and  silver.  Legally  speaking,  it  is  all  convertible  into  spe- 
cie at  the  will  of  the  holder.  But  a  mere  legal  convertibility  is 
not  sufficient.  There  must  be  an  actual,  practical,  never-ceasing 
convertibility.  This,  I  think,  is  not  at  present  sufficiently  se- 
cured ;  and,  as  it  is  a  matter  of  high  interest,  it  well  deserves 
the  serious  consideration  of  the  Senate.  The  paper  circulation 
of  the  country  is  at  this  time  probably  seventy-five  or  eighty 
millions  of  dollars.  Of  specie,  we  may  have  twenty  or  twenty- 
two  millions ;  and  this  principally  in  masses,  in  the  vaults  of  the 
banks.  Now,  Sir,  this  is  a  state  of  things  which,  in  my  judg- 
ment, leads  constantly  to  over-trading,  and  to  the  consequent 
excesses  and  revulsions  which  so  often  disturb  the  regular  course 
of  commercial  affairs.  A  circulation  consisting  in  so  great  a 
degree  of  paper  is  easily  expanded,  to  furnish  temporary  capi- 
tal to  such  as  wish  to  adventure  on  new  enterprises  in  trade ; 
and  the  collection  in  the  banks  of  the  greater  part  of  the  specie 
in  the  country  affords  all  possible  facility  for  its  exportation. 
Hence,  over-trading  does  frequently  occur,  and  is  always  fol- 
lowed by  an  inconvenient,  sometimes  by  a  dangerous,  reduction 
in  the  amount  of  coin.  It  is  in  vain  that  we  look  to  the  pru- 
dence of  the  banks  for  an  effectual  security  against  over-trading. 
The  directors  of  such  institutions  will  generally  go  to  the  length 
of  their  means  in  cashing  good  notes,  and  leave  the  borrower  to 
judge  for  himself  of  the  useful  employment  of  his  money. 

Nor  would  a  competent  security  against  over-trading  be  al- 
ways obtained,  if  the  banks  were  to  confine  their  discounts 
strictly  to  business  paper,  so  denominated ;  that  is,  to  notes  and 
bills  which  represent  real  transactions,  having  been  given  and 
received  on  the  actual  purchase  and  sale  of  merchandise ;  be- 
cause these  transactions  themselves  may  be  too  far  extended. 
In  other  words,  more  may  be  bought  than  the  wants  of  the  com- 
munity require,  on  a  speculative  calculation  of  future  prices. 
Men  naturally  have  a  good  opinion  of  their  own  sagacity.  He 
who  believes  merchandise  is  about  to  rise  in  price,  will  buy  mer- 
chandise, if  he  possesses  money,  or  can  obtain  credit.  The  fact 
of  actual  purchase,  therefore,  is  not  proof  of  a  really  subsisting 
want ;  and  of  course  the  amount  of  all  purchases  does  not  cor- 
respond always  with  the  entire  wants  or  necessities  of  the  com- 
munity. Too  frequently  it  very  much  exceeds  that  measure. 


BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES.  399 

If,  then,  the  discretion  of  the  banks,  exercised  in  deciding  the 
amount  of  their  discounts,  is  not  a  proper  security  against  over- 
trading, if  facility  in  obtaining  bank  credits  naturally  fosters  that 
spirit,  if  the  desire  of  gain  and  love  of  enterprise  constantly 
cherish  it,  and  if  it  finds  specie  collected  in  the  banks  inciting 
exportation,  what  is  the  remedy  suited  and  adequate  to  the 
case? 

Now  I  think,  Sir,  that  a  closer  inquiry  into  the  direct  sourco 
of  the  evil  will  suggest  the  remedy.  Why  have  we  so  small  an 
amount  of  specie  in  circulation  ?  Certainly  the  only  reason  is, 
because  we  do  not  require  more.  We  have  but  to  ask  its  pres- 
ence, and  it  would  return.  But  we  voluntarily  banish  it  by  the 
great  amount  of  small  bank-notes.  In  most  of  the  States,  the 
banks  issue  notes  of  all  low  denominations,  down  even  to  a  sin- 
gle dollar.  How  is  it  possible,  under  such  circumstances,  to 
retain  specie  in  circulation  ?  All  experience  shows  it  to  be  im- 
possible. The  paper  will  take  the  place  of  the  gold  and  silver. 
When  Mr.  Pitt,  in  the  year  1797,  proposed  in  Parliament  to 
authorize  the  Bank  of  England  to  issue  one-pound  notes,  Mr. 
Burke  lay  sick  at  Bath  of  an  illness  from  which  he  never  recov- 
ered ;  and  he  is  said  to  have  written  to  the  late  Mr.  Canning, 
"  Tell  Mr.  Pitt,  that,  if  he  consents  to  the  issuing  of  one-pound 
notes,  he  must  never  expect  to  see  a  guinea  again."  The  one- 
pound  notes  were  issued,  and  the  guineas  disappeared.  A  similar 
cause  is  producing  now  a  precisely  similar  effect  with  us.  Small 
notes  have  expelled  dollars  and  half-dollars  from  circulation  in 
all  the  States  in  which  such  notes  are  issued.  On  the  other 
hand,  dollars  and  half-dollars  abound  in  those  States  which  have 
adopted  a  wiser  and  safer  policy.  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  Ma- 
ryland, Louisiana,  and  some  other  States,  I  think  seven  in  all, 
do  not  allow  their  banks  to  issue  notes  under  five  dollars.  Ev- 
eiy  traveller  notices  the  difference,  when  he  passes  from  one  of 
these  States  into  those  where  small  notes  are  allowed. 

The  evil,  then,  is  the  issuing  of  small  notes  by  State  banks. 
Of  these  notes,  that  is  to  say,  of  notes  under  five  dollars, 
the  amount  now  in  circulation  is  doubtless  eight  or  ten  mil- 
lions of  dollars.  Can  these  notes  be  withdrawn  ?  If  they'  can, 
their  place  will  be  immediately  supplied  by  a  specie  circula- 
tion of  equal  amount.  The  object  is  a  great  one,  as  it  is  con- 
nected with  the  safety  and  stability  of  the  currency,  and  may 


400  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

well  justify  a  serious  reflection  on  the  means  of  accomplishing 
it.  May  not  Congress  and  the  State  governments,  acting,  not 
unitedly,  but  severally,  to  the  same  end,  easily  and  quietly  at- 
tain it  ?  I  think  they  may.  It  is  but  for  other  States  to  follow 
the  good  example  of  those  which  I  have  mentioned,  and  the 
work  is  done.  As  an  inducement  to  the  States  to  do  this,  I 
propose,  in  the  present  bill,  to  reserve  to  Congress  a  power  of 
withdrawing  from  circulation  a  pretty  large  part  of  the  issues  of 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  I  propose  this,  so  that  the 
State  banks  may  withdraw  their  small  notes,  and  find  their  com- 
pensation in  a  larger  circulation  of  those  of  a  higher  denomina- 
tion. My  proposition  will  be,  that,  at  any  time  after  the  expi- 
ration of  the  existing  charter  of  the  bank,  that  is,  after  1836, 
Congress  may,  if  it  see  fit,  restrain  the  bank  from  issuing  for 
circulation  notes  or  bills  under  a  given  sum,  say,  ten  or  twenty 
dollars.  This  will  diminish  the  circulation,  and  consequently 
the  profits,  of  the  bank  ;  but  it  is  of  less  importance  to  make 
the  bank  a  highly  profitable  institution  to  the  stockholders,  than 
that  it  should  be  safe  and  useful  to  the  community.  It  ought 
not,  certainly,  to  be  restrained  from  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  fair 
advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  discreet  use  of  its  capital  in 
banking  transactions;  but  the  leading  object,  after  all,  in  its 
continuance,  is,  and  ought  to  be,  not  private  emolument,  but 
public  benefit. 

It  may,  perhaps,  strike  some  gentlemen,  that  the  circulation 
of  small  notes  might  be  effectually  discouraged,  by  refusing 
to  receive  not  only  all  such  notes,  but  all  notes  of  such 
banks  as  issue  them,  at  the  custom-houses,  land-offices,  post- 
offices,  and  other  places  of  public  receipt,  and  by  causing  them 
to  be  refused  also,  either  in  payment  or  deposit,  at  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States.  But  the  effect  of  such  refusal  may  be 
doubtful.  It  would  certainly,  in  some  degree,  discredit  buch 
notes ;  but  probably  it  would  not  drive  them  out  of  circulation 
altogether;  and  if  it  should  not  do  this,  it  might  very  probably 
increase  their  circulation.  If  in  some  degree  they  become  dis- 
credited, to  that  degree  they  will  become  cheaper  than  other 
notes ;  and  universal  experience  proves,  that,  of  two  things  which 
may  be  current,  the  cheaper  will  always  expel  the  other.  Thus, 
silver  itself,  because  it  is  proportionablv  cheaper  with  us  than 
pold,  has  driven  the  gold  out  of  the  country ;  that  is  to  say,  we 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  401 

can  pay  a  debt  of  one  hundred  dollars,  by  tendering  that  number 
of  Spanish  or  American  dollars.  But  we  cannot  go  into  the 
market,  and  buy  ten  American  eagles  for  these  hundred  silver 
dollars.  They  would  cost  us  a  hundred  and  four.  Thus,  as  we 
can  pay  our  debts  cheaper  in  silver  than  in  gold,  we  use  noth- 
ing but  silver,  and  the  gold  goes  where  it  is  more  highly  valued. 
The  same  thing  always  happens  between  two  sorts  of  paper, 
which  are  found  at  the  same  time  in  circulation.  That  which 
is  cheapest,  or  of  less  value  than  the  other,  always  drives  its 
more  respectable  associate  out  of  its  company. 

Measures,  therefore,  such  as  I  have  alluded  to,  would  be  likely, 
I  fear,  rather  to  aggravate  than  to  remedy  the  evil.  We  must 
hope  that  all  notes  under  five  dollars  may  be  entirely  withdrawn 
from  circulation,  by  the  consent  of  the  States  and  the  State 
banks ;  and  when  that  shall  be  done,  their  place  will  be  imme- 
diately supplied  by  specie.  We  should  then  receive  an  acces- 
sion of  ten  millions  of  dollars,  at  least,  to  our  specie  circulation  : 
and  these  ten  millions  will  find  their  place,  not  in  the  banks, 
not  collected  anywhere  in  large  masses,  but  in  constant  use, 
among  all  .classes,  and  in  hourly  transfer  from  hand  to  hand. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  such  an  addition  would  give  great 
strength  to  our  pecuniary  system,  discourage  excessive  exporta- 
tion of  specie,  and  tend  to  restrain  and  correct  the  evils  of  over- 
trading. England  has  applied  the  like  remedy  to  a  similar  evil, 
though  she  has  carried  the  restriction  much  higher,  and  allowed 
the  circulation  of  no  notes  for  less  sums  than  five  pounds  ster- 
ling. 

I  have  thought  this  subject,  Mr.  President,  of  so  much  im- 
portance, that  it  was  fit  to  present  it,  at  this  time,  to  the  con-\ 
sideration  of  the  Senate.     I  propose  to  do  no  more  at  present  ; 
than  to  insert  such  a  provision  as  I  have  described  in  this  bill. 
In  the  mean  time,  I  hope  the  matter  may  attract  the  attention 
of  those  whose  agency  will  be  desired  to  accomplish  the  general 
object. 

The  next  point  on  which  I  will  offer  a  few  remarks  is  the 
great  advantage  of  the  bank  in  the  operations  of  the  Treasury  • 
first  in  the  collection,  and,  next,  in  the  disbursement  of  the  reve- 
nue. How  is  the  revenue  to  be  collected  through  all  the  custom- 
houses, the  land-offices,  and  the  post-offices,  without  some  such 
means  as  the  bank  affords?  Where  are  payments  made  at 
34* 


402  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

the  custom-houses  to  be  deposited  ?  In  whose  hands  are  these 
large  sums  to  be  trusted  ?  And  how  are  they  to  be  remitted  to 
Washington,  or  wherever  else  they  may  be  wanted  ?  I  dare 
say,  Sir,  that  the  operations  of  the  government  might  be  carried 
on  in  some  way  without  the  agency  of  a  bank ;  but  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  they  could  be  carried  on  safely,  without  loss 
and  without  charge.  Look  to  the  disbursement  of  the  reve- 
nue. At  present,  the  bank  is  bound  to  transmit  government 
funds  in  one  place  to  any  other  place,  without  expense.  A 
dollar  at  St.  Louis  or  Nashville  becomes  a  dollar  in  New 
Hampshire  or  Maine,  if  the-  Treasury  so  choose.  This  cer- 
tainly is  very  useful  and  convenient.  If  there  were  no  Bank 
of  the  United  States  at  New  Orleans,  for  example,  duties  to 
the  government  at  that  place  must  be  received  either  in  spe- 
cie, or  in  bills  of  local  banks.  If  in  the  former,  the  funds  could 
not  be  remitted  where  they  might  be  required,  without  consid- 
erable expense ;  if  in  the  latter,  they  could  not  be  remitted  at 
all,  until  first  converted  into  specie.  If  bills  of  exchange  were 
resorted  to,  they  would  often  command  a  premium,  and  would 
be  always  attended  with  more  or  less  risk.  In  short,  the  util- 
ity of  the  bank  in  collecting  and  disbursing  the  revenue  is  too 
obvious  to  be  argued,  and  too  great  not  to  strike  any  one,  con- 
versant with  such  subjects,  without  the  aid  of  comment. 

I  have  alluded  to  its  dealings  in  foreign  exchanges  as  one  of 
the  most  important  powers  of  the  corporation.  There  are  those 
who  think  this  power  ought  to  be  withheld.  The  possession  of 
it  is,  I  think,  one  of  the  most  common  objections  to  the  bank  in 
the  large  cities ;  but  I  do  not  think  it  a  well-founded  objection. 
It  is  said  that  the  trade  in  exchange  ought  to  be  left  free,  like 
other  traffic.  Be  it  so ;  but  then  why  not  leave  it  as  free  to  the 
bank  as  to  others  ?  The  bank  enjoys  no  monopoly.  If  it  be 
true,  that,  by  the  magnitude  of  its  capital  and  the  distribution 
of  its  several  offices,  it  acts  upon  the  rates  of  exchange,  not 
locally,  but  generally,  and  thus  occasionally  restrains  the  profit 
of  dealing  in  one  place  by  bringing  the  general  rates  through 
the  whole  country  nearer  to  a  uniformity,  the  occasional  profits 
of  individuals  may  be  lessened,  but  the  general  effect  is  bene- 
ficial to  the  public.  If,  at  the  same  time  that  it  keeps  the  do- 
mestic exchanges  of  the  country  at  low  rates,  it  keeps  the  rates 
of  foreign  exchanges  nearly  uniform  and  level,  I  hardly  know 


BANK   OF  THE   UNITED  STATES.  403 

now  it  could  do  greater  service  to  the  commercial  community. 
In  the  business  of  foreign  exchange  the  bank  has,  and  always  will 
have,  powerful  rivals.  It  is  natural  that  these  rivals  should  de- 
sire that,  in  this  particular,  the  bank  should  retire  from  business. 
But  are  its  dealings  in  exchange  found  prejudicial,  by  those  who 
deal  in  it  themselves  no  further  than  to  buy  for  their  own  remit- 
tances in  the  ordinary  way  of  business?  In  things  of  this  kind 
we  may  most  safely  guide  ourselves  by  the  light  of  experience. 
Taking  it  for  granted  that  the  general  interest  of  the  trading 
community  is  injured  by  sudden  fluctuations  in  exchange,  and 
benefited  by  keeping  it  as  steady  as  the  commerce  of  the  coun- 
try will  allow,  —  in  other  words,  by  making  the  price  of  bills  cor- 
respond with  the  real  state  of  the  exchange,  instead  of  being 
raised  or  lowered  for  ends  of  speculation,  —  I  have  inquired 
of  those  who  could  inform  me,  whether,  for  ten  or  twelve  years 
past,  the  rates  of  exchange  have,  or  have  not,  been  as  steady 
and  unvarying  as  may  ever  be  expected;  and  the  information 
I  have  received  has  satisfied  me  that  the  power  of  the  bank  of 
dealing  in  foreign  exchange  has  been  far  from  prejudicial  to  the 
commercial  world.  While  there  is  a  dealer  with  competent 
funds  and  credit  always  willing  to  sell  foreign  bills  at  moderate 
rates,  and  always  ready  also  to  buy  them,  the  very  nature  of  the 
case  furnishes  a  considerable  degree  of  security  against  those 
fluctuations  which  arise  from  speculation,  although  it  leaves 
private  dealings  entirely  free. 

If  that  power  should  be  now  taken  away  from  the  bank,  I 
think  I  can  perceive  that  consequences  of  some  magnitude 
would  follow,  in  particular  parts  of  the  country.  At  present,  the 
producer  or  the  shipper  of  produce  at  New  Orleans,  Savannah, 
or  Charleston,  in  making  shipment  for  Europe,  can,  on  the  spot, 
cash  his  bill,  drawn  against  such  shipment,  without  charge  for 
brokerage,  guaranty,  or  commission.  If  the  planter  has  sold  to 
the  shipper,  the  latter  has  his  bill  discounted,  and  pays  the 
planter,  who  thus  receives  the  price  for  his  crop  without  delay, 
and  without  danger  of  loss.  Suppose  the  bank  were  denied 
the  power  of  purchasing  foreign  bills,  what  would  be  the  neces- 
sary operation  ?  The  producer  or  shipper  might  send  the  cot- 
ton or  the  sugar  to  the  North,  and  in  that  case  the  bank  could 
cash  his  draft.  But  if  he  sent  it  abroad,  his  bill  must  be  sent 
to  his  agent,  in  the  bill  market  of  the  Northern  cities,  for  sale* 


404  BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

and  if  he  wishes  to  realize  the  amount,  he  will  draw  on  his 
agent,  and  sell  such  draft.  This  evidently  subjects  him  to  a 
double  operation,  and  to  the  expenses  of  commission  and  guar- 
anty. 

It  is  plain,  I  think,  that,  in  the  present  state  of  things,  the 
shipper  of  Southern  and  Western  produce  enjoys  the  benefit  of 
both  the  foreign  and  the  Northern  market  more  perfectly  than 
he  would  if  this  state  of  things  were  to  be  so  changed,  that  he 
could  not  draw  on  his  consignee  in  the  foreign  market  as  advan- 
tageously as  he  can  now  do  it. 

But  if  there  be  a  question  about  the  utility  of  the  operations 
of  the  bank  in  foreign  exchange,  there  can  be  none,  I  suppose, 
as  to  its  influence  on  that  which  is  internal  or  domestic.  I 
speak  now  of  internal  exchange  as  exchange  merely ;  without 
considering  it  connected,  as  it  usually  is,  with  advance  or  dis- 
count, in  anticipation  of  the  maturity  of  bills.  In  regard  to  mere 
exchange,  the  operations  of  the  bank  appear  to  have  produced 
the  most  beneficial  effect.  I  doubt  whether,  in  any  extensive 
country,  the  rates  of  internal  exchange  ever  averaged  so  low. 
Before  the  bank  went  into  operation,  three,  four,  or  five  per 
cent,  was  not  uncommon  as  the  difference  of  exchange  between 
one  extremity  of  the  country  and  the  other.  It  has  at  times, 
indeed,  as  I  am  informed,  been  as  high  as  six  per  cent,  between 
New  Orleans  and  Baltimore ;  and  between  other  places  in  this 
country  much  higher.  The  vast  amounts  bought  and  sold  by 
the  bank,  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  average,  perhaps,  less  than 
one  half  of  one  per  cent.  I  doubt  whether  this  exceeds  the  rates 
between  comparatively  neighboring  parts  of  Great  Britain,  or 
of  the  continent  of  Europe,  although  much  of  it  consists  in 
exchange  between  the  extreme  South  and  the  northern  and  east- 
ern parts  of  the  Union. 

With  respect  to  the  effect  and  operation  of  the  bank  upon 
the  general  interests  of  agriculture,  commerce,  and  manufac- 
tures, there  will  be  found  a  great  difference  as  we  look  at 
different  parts  of  the  country.  Everywhere,  I  think,  they 
have  been  salutary;  but  they  have  been  important  in  very 
different  degrees  in  different  quarters.  The  influence  of  the 
bank  on  the  general  currency  of  the  country,  and  its  opera- 
tions in  exchanges,  are  benefits  of  a  general  nature.  These 
are  felt  all  over  the  country.  But  in  loans  and  discounts,  in 


BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES.  405 

the  distribution  and  actual  application  of  its  capital,  different 
portions  of  the  country  have  partaken,  and  are  partaking,  in 
very  different  degrees.  The  West  is  a  new  and  fast-growing 
country,  with  vast  extents  of  rich  land,  inviting  settlement  and 
cultivation.  Enterprise  and  labor  are  pressing  to  this  scene 
of  useful  exertion,  and  necessarily  create  an  urgent  demand 
for  capital.  This  demand  the  bank  meets  to  a  very  consider- 
able degree.  The  reports  of  the  bank  show  the  existing  ex- 
tent of  its  accommodation  to  this  part  of  the  country.  In  the 
whole  Southern  and  Western  States,  that  is  to  say,  south  and 
west  of  Philadelphia,  the  amount  exceeds  forty-three  millions 
of  dollars.  In  the  States  lying  on  the  Mississippi  and  its  wa- 
ters, it  exceeds  thirty  millions  of  dollars.  Of  these  thirty  mil- 
lions, nineteen  or  twenty  are  discounts  of  notes,  and  the  res- 
idue of  acceptances  of  bills  drawn  on  other  parts  of  the  country. 
This  last  amount  is  not  strictly  a  loan ;  it  is  an  advance  in 
anticipation  of  a  debt ;  but  other  advances  are  needed,  quite  as 
fast  as  this  is  paid  off,  as  every  successive  crop  creates  a  new  , 
occasion,  and  a  new  desire  to  sell  bills.  I  leave  it  to  Western  V 
gentlemen  to  judge  how  far  this  state  of  things  goes  to  show 
that  the  continuance  of  the  bank  is  important  to  the  agriculture 
and  commerce  of  the  West.  I  leave  it  to  them  to  contemplate 
the  consequences  of  withdrawing  this  amount  of  capital  from 
their  country.  I  pray  them  also  to  inquire  what  is  to  be  their 
circulating  medium,  when  the  notes  of  the  bank  are  called  in  ? 
Do  they  see  before  them  neither  difficulty  nor  danger  in  this 
part  of  the  case  ?  Are  they  quite  confident,  that,  in  the  absence 
of  the  bills  and  notes  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  they 
need  have  no  fears  of  a  bad  currency,  depreciated  paper,  and  the 
long  train  of  ills  that  follow,  according  to  all  human  experience, 
those  inauspicious  leaders  ?  I  ask  them,  also,  to  judge  how  far 
it  is  wise  to  settle  this  question  now,  so  as  to  give  time  for  mak- 
ing this  vast  change,  if  it  is  to  be  made  at  all.  The  present 
charter  is  to  continue  but  four  years.  If  it  be  not  renewed,  this 
debt  must  be  called  in  within  that  period.  Not  a  new  note  can 
be  taken  to  the  bank  for  a  dollar  of  it,  after  that  time.  The 
whole  circulation  of  bank-notes,  too,  must  be  withdrawn.  Is  IT 
not  plain,  then,  that  it  is  high  time  to  know  how  this  important 
matter  is  to  be  adjusted  ?  The  country  could  not  stand  a  sud- 
den recall  of  aJl  this  capital,  and  an  abrupt  withdrawal  of  this 


406  BANK  OF  THE   UNITED   STATES. 

circulation.  How,  indeed,  the  West  could  stand  the  change, 
even  if  it  were  begun  now,  and  conducted  as  gradually  and  as 
gently  as  possible,  I  confess,  I  can  hardly  see.  The  very  com- 
mencement of  the  process  of  recall,  however  slight,  would  be  felt 
in  the  prices  of  the  very  first  crop,  partly  from  the  immediate 
effect  of  withdrawing  even  a  small  portion  of  the  capital,  and 
partly  from  the  certainty  of  future  pressure  from  withdrawing 
the  rest 

Indeed,  gentlemen  must  prepare  themselves,  I  think,  for  some 
effect  on  prices  of  lands  and  commodities  by  the  postponement 
of  this  question,  should  it  take  place,  as  well  as  for  embarrass- 
ments in  other  respects.  That  postponement  will,  at  best,  not 
diminish  the  uncertainty  which  hangs  over  the  fate  of  the  meas- 
ure. Seeing  the  hostility  which  exists  to  renewing  the  charter, 
and  the  extent  of  that  hostility,  if  the  measure  cannot  now  be 
carried,  not  only  a  prudent  regard  to  its  own  interests,  but  the 
highest  duty  to  the  country,  ought  to  lead  the  bank  to  prepare 
for  the  termination  of  its  career.  It  has  not  before  it  one  day 
too  many  to  enable  it  to  wind  up  such  vast  concerns,  with- 
out distressing  the  public.  If  it  were  certain  that  the  charter 
was  to  be  renewed,  a  postponement  would  be  of  little  impor- 
tance. But  this  is  uncertain,  and  a  postponement  would  render 
it  more  uncertain.  A  motion  to  postpone,  should  such  be  made, 
will  be  mainly  supported  by  those  who,  either  on  constitutional 
grounds,  or  some  other  grounds,  are  and  always  will  be  against 
the  renewal  of  the  charter.  A  postponement  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, and  such  auspices,  cannot  but  create  far  stronger 

doubts  than  now  exist  of  the  final  renewal  of  the  charter.     It  is 
/ 

now  two  years  and  a  half  since  the  President  invited  the  atten- 
tion of  Congress  to  this  subject.  That  invitation  has  been  more 
than  once  repeated.  £j3vervwnere  the  subject  has  been  con- 
sidered ;  everywhere  it  has  been  discussed.  The  public  interest 
now  requires  our  decision  upon  it,  and  the  public  voice  de- 
mands that  decision.  I  trust,  Sir,  we  shall  make  it,  and  make  it 
wisely.^ 

Mr.  President,  the  motives  which  prescribe  my  own  line  of 
conduct,  on  this  occasion,  are  not  drawn  from  any  local  consid 
erations.     The  State  in  whose  representation  I  bear  a  part  has 
as  little  interest  peculiar  to  itself,  in  the  continuance  of  this  cor- 
poration, as  any  State  in  the  Union.    She  does  not  need  the  aid 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  407 

of  its  capital,  because  the  state  of  her  commerce  and  manufac- 
tures does  not  call  for  the  employment  of  more  capital  than  she 
possesses.  She  does  not  need  it,  in  a  peculiar  degree,  certainly, 
as  any  restraint  or  corrective  on  her  own  paper  currency.  Her 
banks  are  as  well  conducted  as  those  of  other  States.  But  she 
has  a  common  interest  in  the  continuance  of  a  useful  institution. 
She  has  an  interest  in  the  wise  and  successful  administration  of 
the  government,  in  all  its  departments.  She  is  interested  that 
the  general  currency  of  the  country  should  be  maintained  in  a 
safe  and  healthy  state.  She  derives  a  benefit  with  others  (I  be- 
lieve it  a  great  benefit)  from  the  facility  of  exchanges  in  internal 
commerce,  which  the  bank  affords.  This  is  the  sum  of  her 
motives.  For  these  reasons,  she  is  willing  that  the  bank  should 
be  continued.  But  if  the  matter  should  be  otherwise  deter- 
mined, however  much  she  might  regret  it  on  general  and  public 
grounds,  she  certainly  does  not  apprehend  from  that  result  such 
inconveniences  to  her  own  citizens  as  may  and  must  fall,  so  far 
as  I  can  see,  on  some  others. 

Mr.  President,  I  will  take  leave  of  the  subject  for  the  present, 
with  a  remark  which  I  think  is  due  from  me.  For  some  years 
past,  I  have  not  been  inattentive  to  the  general  operations  of  the 
bank,  or  to  their  influence  on  the  public  interests  and  the  con- 
venient administration  of  the  government;  and{ltake  the  occa- 
sion to  say,  with  sincerity  and  cheerfulness,  that,  during  that 
period,  its  affairs  have  been  conducted,  in  my  opinion,  with 
fidelity,  as  well  towards  the  government  as  towards  its  own 
stockholders  ;  and  that  it  has  sought  the  accomplishment  of  the 
public  purposes  designed  by  its  institution  with  distinguished 
ability  and  distinguished  success?)  * 


FURTHER    REMARKS    ON    THE    BANK  OF  THE    UNITED    STATES, 
MADE  IN  THE   SENATE   ON   THE   28TH  OF  MAY,  1832. 

THE  question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Moore  of  Ala- 
bama, proposing, — 

"  First,  That  the  bank  shall  not  establish  or  continue  any  office  of 
discount  or  deposit,  or  branch  bank,  in  any  State,  without  the  consent 
and  approbation  of  the  State  ; 


408  BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

"Second,  That  all  such  offices  and  branches  shall  be  subject  to  tax- 
ation, according  to  the  amount  of  their  loans  and  issues,  in  like  manner 
as  other  banks  or  other  property  shall  be  liable  to  taxation  "  ;  — 

Mr.  Webster  spoke  as  follows  :  — 

I  trust,  Sir,  the  Senate  will  not  act  on  these  propositions  with- 
out fully  understanding  their  bearing  and  extent.  For  myself, 
I  look  upon  the  two  parts  of  the  amendment  as  substantially  of 
the  same  character.  Each,  in  my  opinion,  confers  a  power  in 
the  States  to  expel  the  bank  at  their  pleasure ;  in  other  words, 
entirely  to  defeat  the  operations,  and  destroy  the  capacity  for 
usefulness,  of  the  whole  bank.  The  simple  question  is,  Shall 
we,  by  our  own  act,  in  the  charter  itself,  give  to  the  States  this 
permission  to  expel  the  bank  and  all  its  branches  from  their 
limits,  at  their  own  pleasure  ?  The  first  part  of  the  amendment 
gives  this  permission  in  express  terms ;  and  the  latter  part  gives 
it  in  effect,  by  authorizing  the  States  to  tax  the  loans  and  issues 
of  the  bank,  with  no  effectual  limitation.  It  appears  to  me  idle 
to  say,  that  this  power  may  be  safely  given,  because  it  will  not 
be  exercised.  It  is  to  be  given,  I  presume,  on  the  supposition 
that  probably  some  of  the  States  will  choose  to  exercise  it ;  else 
why  is  it  given  at  all  ?  And  will  they  not  so  choose  ?  We 
have  already  heard,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  of  two  cases  in 
which  States  attempted  to  exercise  a  power  of  this  kind,  when 
they  did  not  constitutionally  possess  it.  Two  States  have  taxed 
the  branches,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  driving  them  out  of 
their  limits,  and  were  prevented  from  accomplishing  this  object 
merely  by  force  of  judicial  decisions  against  their  right.  If,  then, 
these  attempts  have  been  made  to  exercise  this  power  when  it 
was  not  legally  possessed,  and  against  the  will  of  Congress,  is 
there  any  doubt  that  it  will  be  exercised  when  its  exercise  shall 
be  permitted  and  invited  by  the  proposed  amendment?  No 
doubt,  in  my  mind,  the  power,  if  granted,  will  be  exercised,  and 
the  main  object  of  continuing  the  bank  will  be  thus  defeated. 

I  have  already  said,  that  the  second  branch  of  the  amendment 
is  as  objectionable  and  as  destructive  as  the  first.  I  think  it  so 
It  appears  to  me  to  give  ample  power,  by  means  of  taxation,  to 
expel  the  bank  from  any  State  which  may  choose  to  expel  it. 
It  gives  a  power  of  taxation  without  fixed  limits,  or  any  reason- 
able guards.  And  a  power  of  taxation  without  fixed  limits, 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

and  without  guards,  is  a  power  to  embarrass,  a  power  to  oppress, 
a  power  to  expel,  a  power  to  destroy.  The  States  are  to  be 
allowed  to  tax  the  branches  according  to  the  amount  of  their 
loans  and  discounts,  in  like  manner  as  other  banks,  or  other 
property  in  the  State,  shall  be  liable  to  taxation. 

Now,  Sir,  some  of  the  States  have  no  banks.  Of  course  they 
tax  no  banks.  In  other  States,  the  banks  pay  the  State  a  bonus 
on  their  creation,  and  are  not  otherwise  taxed.  In  other  cases, 
the  State,  in  effect,  itself  owns  the  bank,  and  a  tax  on  it,  there- 
fore, would  be  merely  nominal.  Besides,  no  State  is  to  be 
bound  to  lay  this  tax  as  it  taxes  its  own  banks.  It  has  an 
option  to  tax  it  in  that  manner,  or  as  other  property  is  taxed. 
What  other  property?  It  may  be  as  lottery-tickets,  gaming- 
tables, or  other  things  which  may  be  deemed  fit  to  be  discour- 
aged or  suppressed,  are  taxed.  The  bank  may  be  classed  with 
other  nuisances,  and  driven  out  or  put  down  by  taxation.  All 
this  is  perfectly  within  the  scope  of  the  amendment.  The 
license  is  broad  enough  to  authorize  any  thing  which  may  be 
designed  or  wished. 

Now,  Sir,  I  doubt  exceedingly  our  power  to  adopt  this  amend- 
ment, and  I  pray  the  deliberate  consideration  of  the  Senate  in 
regard  to  this  point.  In  the  first  place,  let  me  ask,  What  is  the 
constitutional  ground  on  which  Congress  created  this  corpora- 
tion, and  on  which  we  now  propose  to  continue  it?  There  is 
no  express  authority  to  create  a  bank,  or  any  other  corporation, 
given  to  us  by  the  Constitution.  The  power  is  derived  by  im- 
plication. It  has  been  exercised,  and  can  be  exercised,  only  on 
the  ground  of  a  just  necessity.  It  is  to  be  maintained,  if  at  all, 
on  the  allegation,  that  the  establishment  of  a  national  bank  is 
a  just  and  necessary  means  for  carrying  on  the  government,  and 
executing  the  powers  conferred  on  Congress  by  the  Constitu- 
tion. On  this  ground,  Congress  has  established  this  bank,  and 
on  this  it  is  now  proposed  to  be  continued.  And  it  has  already 
been  judicially  decided,  that,  Congress  having  established  a 
bank  for  these  purposes,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
prohibits  the  States  from  taxing  it.  Observe,  Sir,  it  is  the  Con- 
stitution, not  the  law,  which  lays  this  prohibition  on  the  States. 
The  charter  of  the  bank  does  not  declare  that  the  States  shall 
not  tax  it.  It  says  not  one  word  on  that  subject.  The  restraint 
is  imposed,  not  by  Congress,  but  by  a  higher  authority,  the  Con- 

VOL.  in.  35 


410  BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

stitution.  Now,  Sir,  I  ask  how  we  can  relieve  the  States  from 
this  constitutional  prohibition.  It  is  true,  that  this  prohibition 
is  not  imposed  in  express  terms ;  but  it  results  from  the  general 
provisions  of  the  Constitution,  and  has  been  judicially  decided 
to  exist  in  full  force.  This  is  a  protection,  then,  which  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  by  its  own  force,  holds  over  this 
institution,  which  Congress  has  deemed  necessary  to  be  created 
in  order  to  carry  on  the  government,  so  soon  as  Congress,  exer- 
cising its  own  judgment,  has  chosen  to  create  it.  Can  we 
throw  off  from  this  government  this  constitutional  protection  ? 
I  think  it  clear  we  cannot.  We  cannot  repeal  the  Constitution. 
We  cannot  say  that  every  power,  every  branch,  every  institu- 
tion, and  every  law  of  this  government  shall  not  have  all  the 
force,  all  the  sanction,  and  all  the  protection,  which  the  Consti- 
tution gives  it. 

By  the  Constitution,  every  law  of  Congress  is  finally  to  be 
considered,  and  its  construction  ultimately  settled,  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States.  These  very  acts  before  re« 
ferred  to,  taxing  the  banks,  were  held  Valid  by  some  of  the  judi- 
catures of  the  States,  but  were  finally  pronounced  unconstitu- 
tional by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  and  this, 
not  by  force  of  any  words  in  the  charter,  but  by  force  of  the 
Constitution  itself.  I  ask  whether  it  is  competent  for  us  to  re- 
verse this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  and  to  say  that  the  laws 
of  Congress  shall  receive  their  ultimate  construction  from  the 
State  courts.  Again,  the  Constitution  gives  Congress  a  right 
to  lay  duties  of  impost,  and  it  prohibits  the  exercise  of  any  such 
power  by  the  States.  Now  it  so  happens,  that  the  national 
treasury  is  much  better  supplied  than  the  treasuries  of  the  States. 
It  might  be  thought  very  convenient  that  a  part  of  the  receipts  at 
the  custom-houses  should  be  received  by  the  States.  But  will 
any  man  say  that  Congress  could  now  authorize  the  States  to 
lay  and  collect  imposts  under  any  restrictions  or  limitations 
whatever?  No  one  will  pretend  it.  That  would  be  to  make  a 
new  partition  of  power  between  this  government  and  the  State 
governments.  Mr.  Madison  has  very  correctly  observed,  that  the 
assent  of  the  States  cannot  confer  a  new  power  on  Congress, 
except  in  those  cases  especially  provided  in  the  Constitution. 
This  is  very  true,  and  it  is  equally  true  that  the  States  cannot 
obtain  a  new  power  by  the  consent  of  Congress,  against  the 


BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES.  411 

prohibition  of  the  Constitution,  except  in  those  cases  which  are 
expressly  so  provided  for  in  the  Constitution  itself. 

These  reasons,  Sir,  lead  me  to  think  that,  if,  for  purposes  con 
nected  with  the  beneficial  administration  of  the  government,  we 
deem  it  necessary  to  continue  this  corporation,  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  repeal  any  protection,  or  any  immunity,  with  which 
the  Constitution  surrounds  it.  We  cannot  give  to  a  law  of  the 
United  States  less  than  its  constitutional  effect.  The  Constitu- 
tion says,  that  every  such  law,  passed  in  pursuance  of  the  Con- 
stitution, shall  be  paramount  to  any  State  law.  We  cannot 
enact  that  it  shall  not  be  so ;  for  that  would  be  so  far  to  repeal 
the  Constitution. 

Allow  me  now,  Mr.  President,  to  inquire  on  what  ground  it 
is  that  the  States  claim  this  power  of  taxation.  They  do  not 
claim  it  as  a  power  to  tax  all  property  of  their  own  citizens. 
This  they  possess,  without  denial  or  doubt.  Every  stockholder 
in  the  bank  is  liable  to  be  taxed  for  his  property  therein,  by  the 
State  of  which  he  is  a  citizen.  This  right  is  exercised,  I  believe, 
by  all  the  States  which"  lay  taxes  on  money  at  interest,  income, 
and  other  subjects  of  that  kind.  It  is,  then,  not  that  they  may 
be  authorized  to  tax  the  property  of  their  own  citizens.  Nor  is  it 
because  any  State  does  not  participate  in  the  advantage  of  the 
premium,  or  bonus,  paid  by  the  bank  to  government  for  the  char- 
ter. That  sum  goes  into  the  treasury  for  the  general  good  of  all. 

Nor  can  the  claim  be  sustained,  nor,  indeed,  is  it  asserted,  on 
the  strength  of  the  mere  circumstance  that  a  branch,  or  an  office, 
is  established  in  a  State.  Such  office  or  branch  is  but  an  agen- 
cy. It  is  no  body  politic  or  corporate.  It  has  no  legal  exist- 
ence of  itself.  It  is  but  an  agent  of  the  general  corporation. 
That  these  agents  have  their  residence  or  place  of  business 
in  a  particular  State,  is  not  of  itself  the  foundation  of  any 
claim.  But,  according  to  the  language  of  the  amendment,  the 
ground  of  this  claim  to  tax  is  evidently  the  loans  and  issues ; 
and  these  loans  and  issues,  properly  speaking,  are  the  loans 
and  discounts  of  the  bank.  The  office,  as  an  agent,  conducts 
the  arrangements,  it  is  true ;  but  the  notes  which  are  issued 
are  notes  of  the  bank,  and  the  debts  created  are  debts  due 
to  the  bank.  The  circulation  is  the  circulation  of  the  bank. 
Now  the  truth  is,  what  the  States  claim,  or  what  this  amend- 
ment proposes  to  give  them,  is  a  right  to  tax  the  circulation  of 


412  BANK  OP    THE   UNITED  STATES. 

the  bank.  It  is  on  this  right  that,  the  argument  rests.  The 
common  way  of  stating  it  is,  that,  since  State  banks  pay  a  tax 
to  the  State,  these  branch  banks  among  them  ought  to  pay  a 
similar  tax.  But  the  State  banks  pay  the  tax  to  the  State  for 
the  privilege  of  circulation ;  and  the  proposition  is,  therefore, 
neither  more  nor  less  than  that  the  United  States  Bank  shall 
pay  the  States  for  the  same  privilege.  The  circulation  of  the 
bills  is  the  substance.  The  locality  of  the  office  is  but  an  inci- 
dent. An  office  is  created,  for  example,  on  Connecticut  River, 
either  in  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Connecticut,  or  New  Hamp- 
shire. The  no1;es  of  the  bank  are  loaned  at  this  office,  and  put 
into  circulation  in  all  these  States.  Now,  no  one  will  say  that 
the  State  where  the  office  happens  to  be  placed  should  have  a 
right  to  lay  this  tax,  and  the  other  States  have  no  such  right. 
This  would  be  a  merely  arbitrary  distinction.  It  would  be 
founded  on  no  real  or  substantial  difference ;  and  no  man,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  could  seriously  contend  for  it.  Under  this  very 
amendment,  Pennsylvania  would  be  authorized  to  collect  a  large 
tax,  and  New  Jersey  no  tax  at  all,  although  the  State  circulation 
of  New  Jersey  is  as  much  infringed  and  diminished  as  that  of 
Pennsylvania  by  the  circulation  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States.  The  States  which  have  the  benefit  of  branches  (if  it  be 
a  benefit)  are  to  have  the  further  advantage  of  taxation ;  while 
other  States  are  to  have  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  Found- 
ing the  claim  on  the  State  right  to  derive  benefit  from  the  paper 
circulation  which  exists  within  it,  the  advocates  of  the  claim  are 
clearly  not  consistent  with  themselves,  when  they  maintain  a 
measure  which  professes  to  protect  that  right  in  some  States, 
and  to  leave  it  unprotected  in  other's. 

But  the  inequality  of  the  operation  of  this  amendment  is  not 
the  only,  nor  the  main,  objection  to  it.  It  proceeds  on  a  prin- 
ciple not  to  be  admitted.  It  asserts,  or  it  takes  for  granted,  that 
the  power  of  authorizing  and  regulating  the  paper  currency  of 
the  country  is  an  exclusive  State  right.  The  ground  assumed 
can  be  no  less  broad  than  this ;  because,  the  Bank  of  the  United 
Stales  having  the  grant  of  a  power  from  Congress  to  issue  notes 
for  circulation,  its  right  is  perfect,  if  Congress  could  make  such 
a  grant.  It  owes  nothing  to  the  States,  if  Congress  could  give 
what  it  has  undertaken  to  give ;  that  is  to  say,  if  Congress,  of 
its  own  authority,  may  confer  a  right  to  issue  paper  for  circula- 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  413 

tion.  Now,  Sir,  whosoever  denies  this  right  in  Congress  denies, 
of  course,  its  power  to  create  such  a  bank  as  now  exists ;  at  least, 
so  it  strikes  me.  The  Bank  of  the  United  States  is  quite  uncon- 
stitutional, if  the  whole  paper  circulation  belongs  to  the  States ; 
because  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  is  a  bank  of  circulation, 
and  was  so  intended  to  be  by  Congress,  which  expressly  author- 
ized the  circulation  of  notes  and  bills.  The  power  of  issuing 
notes  for  circulation  is  not  an  indispensable  ingredient  in  the 
constitution  of  a  bank,  merely  as  a  bank.  The  earlier  banks 
did  not  possess  it,  and  many  good  ones  have  existed  without  it 
A  bank  with  no  such  power  might  yet  very  well  collect  the 
public  revenue,  provided  there  was  a  proper  medium  in  which 
it  could  be  paid ;  could  tolerably  well  remit  the  revenue  to  the 
treasury ;  and  could  deal  usefully,  to  some  extent,  in  the  business 
of  exchange. 

On  what  ground  is  it,  then,  that  Congress  possesses  the  pow- 
er, not  only  to  create  a  bank,  but  a  bank  of  circulation  ?  Sim- 
ply, as  I  suppose,  because  Congress  possesses  a  constitutional 
control  over  the  currency  of  the  country,  and  has  power  to  pro- 
vide a  safe  medium  of  circulation,  as  well  for  other  purposes  as 
for  the  collection  of  its  own  debts  and  revenue.  The  bank, 
therefore,  already  possesses  unconstitutional  power,  if  the  paper 
circulation  be  the  subject,  exclusively,  of  State  right  or  State 
regulation.  Indeed,  Sir,  it  is  not  a  little  startling  that  such  ex- 
clusive right  should  now  be  asserted.  I  observed,  the  other  day, 
that,  in  my  opinion,  it  was  very  difficult  to  maintain,  on  the  face 
of  the  Constitution  itself,  and  independent  of  long-continued 
practice,  the  doctrine  that  the  States  could  authorize  the  circula- 
tion of  bank  paper  at  all.  They  cannot  coin  money;  can  they, 
then,  coin  that  which  becomes  the  actual  and  almost  the  univer- 
sal substitute  for  money  ?  Is  not  the  right  of  issuing  paper,  in- 
tended for  circulation,  in  the  place  and  as  the  representative  of 
metallic  currency,  derived  merely  from  the  power  of  coining  and 
regulating  that  metallic  currency  ?  As  bringing  this  matter  to 
a  just  test,  let  me  ask  whether  Congress,  if  it  had  not  the  power 
of  coining  money,  and  of  regulating  the  value  of  foreign  coins 
could  create  a  bank,  with  the  power  to  circulate  bills.  For  one, 
I  think  it  would  be  difficult  to  make  that  out.  Where,  then,  do 
the  States,  to  whom  all  control  over  the  metallic  currency  is 
altogether  prohibited,  get  tins  power  ?  It  is  true  that,  in  othei 
35* 


414  BANK  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

countries,  private  bankers,  having  no  legal  authority  over  the 
coin,  issue  notes  for  circulation.  But  this  they  do  always  with 
the  consent  of  government,  express  or  implied;  and  govern- 
ment restrains  and  regulates  all  their  operations  at  its  pleasure. 
It  would  be  a  startling  proposition,  in  any  other  part  of  the 
world,  that  the  prerogative  of  coining  money,  held  by  govern- 
ment, was  liable  to  be  defeated,  counteracted,  or  impeded,  by 
another  prerogative,  held  in  other  hands,  of  authorizing  a  paper 
circulation. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  the  States  cannot  issue  bills 
of  credit ;  not  that  they  cannot  make  them  a  legal  tender,  but 
that  they  cannot  issue  them  at  all.  Is  not  this  a  clear  indication 
of  the  intent  of  the  Constitution  to  restrain  the  States,  as  well 
from  establishing  a  paper  circulation,  as  from  interfering  with 
the  metallic  circulation  ?  Banks  have  been  created  by  States 
with  no  capital  whatever ;  their  notes  being  put  into  circulation 
simply  on  the  credit  of  the  State,  or  the  State  law.  What  are 
the  issues  of  such  banks  but  bills  of  credit,  issued  by  the  State  ? 

I  confess,  Mr.  President,  that  the  more  I  reflect  on  this  sub- 
ject, the  more  clearly  does  my  mind  approach  the  conclusion, 
that  the  creation  of  State  banks,  for  the  purpose  and  with  the 
power  of  circulating  paper,  is  not  consistent  with  the  grants  and 
prohibitions  of  the  Constitution.  But,  Sir,  this  is  not  now  the 
question.  The  question  is,  not  whether  the  States  have  the 
power;  it  is,  whether  they  alone  have  the  power.  May  they 
rightfully  exclude  the  United  States  from  all  interference  with 
the  paper  currency?  Are  we  interlopers,  when  we  create  a 
bank  of  circulation  ?  Do  we  owe  them  a  seigniorage  for  the  cir- 
culation of  bills,  by  a  corporation  created  by  Congress  ?  Up  to 
the  present  time,  the  States  have  been  content  with  a  concur- 
rent power.  They  have,  indeed,  controlled  vastly  the  larger  por- 
tion of  the  circulation ;  but  they  have  not  claimed  exclusive 
authority  over  the  whole.  They  have  demanded  no  tax  or  trib- 
ute from  a  bank  issuing  paper  under  the  authority  of  Congress. 
Nor  do  I  know  that  any  State  or  States  now  insist  upon  it.  It 
may  be,  that  individual  States  have  put  forth  such  claims,  in 
their  legislative  capacity ;  but  at  present  I  recollect  no  instance. 
The  amendment,  however,  which  is  now  proposed,  asserts  the 
claim,  and  I  cannot  consent  to  yield  to  it.  We  seem  to  be 
making  the  last  struggle  for  the  authority  of  Congress  to  inter- 


BANK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  415 

fere  at  all  with  the  actual  currency  of  the  country.  I  shall  never 
agree  to  surrender  that  authority ;  I  would  as  soon  yield  the 
coinage  power  itself;  nor  do  I  think  there  would  be  much 
greater  danger,  nor  a  much  clearer  departure  from  constitu- 
tional principle,  in  a  consenting  to  such  surrender,  than  in  acqui- 
escing in  what  is  now  proposed. 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES  BANK  BILL.* 


* 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  no  one  will  deny  the  high  importance  of  the 
subject  now  before  us.  Congress,  after  full  deliberation  and 
discussion,  has  passed  a  bill,  by  decisive  majorities,  in  both 
houses,  for  extending  the  duration  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States.  It  has  not  adopted  this  measure  until  its  attention  had 
been  called  to  the  subject,  in  three  succes'sive  annual  messages 
of  the  President.  The  bill  having  been  thus  passed  by  both 
houses,  and  having  been  duly  presented  to  the  President,  in- 
stead of  signing  and  approving  it,  he  has  returned  it  with  ob- 
jections. These  objections  go  against  the  whole  substance  of 
the  law  originally  creating  the  bank.  They  deny,  in  effect,  that 
.  the  bank  is  constitutional ;  they  deny  that  it  is  expedient ;  they 
deny  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  public  service. 

It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  the  Constitution  gives  the  Presi- 
dent the  power  which  he  has  now  exercised;  but  while  the 
power  is  admitted,  the  grounds  upon  which  it  has  been  exerted 
become  fit  subjects  of  examination.  The  Constitution  makes 
it  the  duty  of  Congress,  in  cases  like  this,  to  reconsider  the 
measure  which  they  have  passed,  to  weigh  the  force  of  the 
President's  objections  to  that  measure,  and  to  take  a  new  vote 
upon  the  question. 

Before  the  Senate  proceeds  to  this  second  vote,  I  propose  to 
make  some  remarks  upon  those  objections.  And,  in  the  first 
place,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  they  are  such  as  to  extinguish 
all  hope  that  the  present  bank,  or  any  bank  at  all  resembling  it, 
or  resembling  any  known  similar  institution,  can  ever  receive  his 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  llth  of  July, 
X832,  on  the  President's  Veto  of  the  Bank  Bill. 


VETO  OF  THE    UNITED   STATES   BANK  BILL.          417 

approbation.  He  states  no  terms,  no  qualifications,  no  condi- 
tions, no  modifications,  which  can  reconcile  him  to  the  essential 
provisions  of  the  existing  charter.  He  is  against  the  bank, 
and  against  any  bank  constituted  in  a  manner  known  either  to 
this  or  any  other  country.  One  advantage,  therefore,  is  certain- 
ly obtained  by  presenting  him  the  bill.  It  has  caused  the  Presi- 
dent's sentiments  to  be  made  known.  There  is  no  longer  any 
mystery,  no  longer  a  contest  between  hope  and  fear,  or  between 
those  prophets  who  predicted  a  veto  and  those  who  foretold  an 
approval.  The  bill  is  negatived ;  the  President  has  assumed  the 
responsibility  of  putting  an  end  to  the  bank;  and  the  country 
must  prepare  itself  to  meet  that  change  in  its  concerns  which 
the  expiration  of  the  charter  will  produce.  Mr.  President,  I  will 
not  conceal  my  opinion  that  the  affairs  of  the  country  are  ap- 
proaching an  important  and  dangerous  crisis.  At  the  very  mo- 
ment of  almost  unparalleled  general  prosperity,  there  appears  an 
unaccountable  disposition  to  destroy  the  most  useful  and  most 
approved  institutions  of  the  government.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  be 
in  the  midst  of  all  this  national  happiness  that  some  are  found 
openly  to  question  the  advantages  of  the  Constitution  itself; 
and  many  more  ready  to  embarrass  the  exercise  of  its  just  power, 
weaken  its  authority,  and  undermine  its  foundations.  How  far 
these  notions  may  be  carried,  it  is  impossible  yet  to  say.  We 
have  before  us  the  practical  result  of  one  of  them.  The  bank 
has  fallen,  or  is  to  fall. 

It  is  now  certain,  that,  without  a  change  in  our  public  coun- 
sels, this  bank  will  not  be  continued,  nor  will  any  other  be  es- 
tablished, which,  according  to  the  general  sense  and  language  of 
mankind,  can  be  entitled  to  the  name.  Within  three  years  and 
nine  months  from  the  present  moment,  the  charter  of  the  bank 
expires ;  within  that  period,  therefore,  it  must  wind  up  its  con- 
cerns. It  must  call  in  its  debts,  withdraw  its  bills  from  circula- 
tion, and  cease  from  all  its  ordinary  operations.  All  this  is  to 
be  done  in  three  years  and  nine  months ;  because,  although 
there  is  a  provision  in  the  charter  rendering  it  lawful  to  use  the 
corporate  name  for  two  years  after  the  expiration  of  the  charter, 
yet  this  is  allowed  only  for  the  purpose  of  suits  and  for  the  sale 
of  the  estate  belonging  to  the  bank,  and  for  no  other  purpose 
whatever.  The  whole  active  business  of  the  bank,  its  custody 
of  public  deposits,  its  transfer  of  public  moneys,  its  dealing  in 


418  THE   PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

exchange,  all  its  loans  and  discounts,  and  all  its  issues  of  bills 
for  circulation,  must  cease  and  determine  on  or  before  the  third 
day  of  March,  1836 ;  and  within  the  same  period  its  debts  must 
be  collected,  as  no  new  contract  can  be  made  with  it,  as  a  cor- 
poration, for  the  renewal  of  loans,  or  discount  of  notes  or  bills, 
after  that  time. 

The  President  is  of  opinion,  that  this  time  is  long  enough  to 
close  the  concerns  of  the  institution  without  inconvenience. 
His  language  is,  "  The  time  allowed  the  bank  to  close  its  con- 
cerns is  ample,  and  if  it  has  been  well  managed,  its  pressure  will 
be  light,  and  heavy  only  in  case  its  management  has  been  bad. 
If,  therefore,  it  shall  produce  distress,  the  fault  will  be  its  own." 
Sir,  this  is  all  no  more  than  general  statement,  without  fact  or 
argument  to  support  it.  We  know  what  the  management  of 
the  bank  has  been,  and  we  know  the  present  state  of  its  affairs. 
We  can  judge,  therefore,  whether  it  be  probable  that  its  capital 
can  be  all  called  in,  and  the  circulation  of  its  bills  withdrawn,  in 
three  years  and  nine  months,  by  any  discretion  or  prudence  in 
management,  without  producing  distress.  The  bank  has  dis- 
counted liberally,  in  compliance  with  the  wants  of  the  commu- 
nity. The  amount  due  to  it  on  loans  and  discounts,  in  certain 
large  divisions  of  the  country,  is  great;  so  great,  that  I  do  not 
perceive  how  any  man  can  believe  that  it  can  be  paid,  within 
the  time  now  limited,  without  distress.  Let  us  look  at  known 
facts.  Thirty  millions  of  the  capital  of  the  bank  are  now  out, 
on  loans  and  discounts,  in  the  States  on  the  Mississippi  and  its 
waters;  ten  millions  of  which  are  loaned  on  the  discount  of 
bills  of  exchange,  foreign  and  domestic,  and  twenty  millions  on 
promissory  notes.  Now,  Sir,  how  is  it  possible  that  this  vast 
amount  can  be  collected  in  so  short  a  period  without  suffering, 
by  any  management  whatever?  We  are  to  remember,  that, 
when  the  collection  of  this  debt  begins,  at  that  same  time,  the 
existing  medium  of  payment,  that  is,  the  circulation  of  the  bills 
of  the  bank,  will  begin  also  to  be  restrained  and  withdrawn ; 
and  thus  the  means  of  payment  must  be  limited  just  when  the 
necessity  of  making  payment  becomes  pressing.  The  whole 
debt  is  to  be  paid,  and  within  the  same  time  the  whole  circula- 
tion withdrawn. 

The  local  banks,  where  there  are  such,  will  be  able  to  afford 
little  assistance ;  because  they  themselves  will  feel  a  full  share 


OF  THh    UiMl'ED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  419 

of  the  pressure.  They  will  not  be  in  a  condition  to  extend 
their  discounts,  but,  in  all  probability,  obliged  to  curtail  them. 
Whence,  then,  are  the  means  to  come  for  paying  this  debt?  and 
in  what  medium  is  payment  to  be  made  ?  If  all  this  may  be 
done  with  but  slight  pressure  on  the  community,  what  course 
of  conduct  is  to  accomplish  it  ?  How  is  it  to  be  done  ?  What 
other  thirty  millions  are  to  supply  the  place  of  these  thirty  mil- 
lions now  to  be  called  in  ?  What  other  circulation  or  medium 
of  payment  is  to  be  adopted  in  the  place  of  the  bills  of  the 
bank?  The  message,  following  a  singular  train  of  argument, 
which  had  been  used  in  this  house,  has  a  loud  lamentation 
upon  the  suffering  of  the  Western  States  on  account  of  their 
being  obliged  to  pay  even  interest  on  this  debt.  This  payment 
of  interest  is  itself  represented  as  exhausting  their  means  and 
ruinous  to  their  prosperity.  But  if  the  interest  cannot  be  paid 
without  pressure,  can  both  interest  and  principal  be  paid  in  four 
years  without  pressure?  The  truth  is,  the  interest  has  been 
paid,  is  paid,  and  may  continue  to  be  paid,  without  any  pres- 
sure at  all ;  because  the  money  borrowed  is  profitably  employed 
by  those  who  borrow  it,  and  the  rate  of  interest  which  they  pay 
is  at  least  two  per  cent,  lower  than  the  actual  value  of  money  in 
that  part  of  the  country.  But  to  pay  the  whole  principal  in  less 
than  four  years,  losing,  at  the  same  time,  the  existing  and  ac- 
customed means  and  facilities  of  payment  created  by  the  bank 
itself,  and  to  do  this  without  extreme  embarrassment,  without 
absolute  distress,  is,  in  my  judgment,  impossible.  I  hesitate  not 
to  say,  that,  as  this  veto  travels  to  the  West,  it  will  depreciate 
the  value  of  every  man's  property  from  the  Atlantic  States  to 
the  capita]  of  Missouri.  Its  effects  will  be  felt  in  the  price  of 
lands,  the  great  and  leading  article  of  Western  property,  in  the 
price  of  crops,  in  the  products  of  labor,  in  the  repression  of  enter- 
prise, and  in  embarrassment  to  every  kind  of  business  and  occu- 
pation. I  state  this  opinion  strongly,  because  I  have  no  doubt 
of  its  truth,  and  am  willing  its  correctness  should  be  judged  by 
the  event.  Without  personal  acquaintance  with  the  Western 
States,  I  know  enough  of  their  condition  to  be  satisfied  that 
what  I  have  predicted  must  happen.  The  people  of  the  West 
are  rich,  but  their  riches  consist  in  their  immense  quantities  of 
excellent  land,  in  the  products  of  these  lands,  and  in  their  spirit 
of  enterprise.  The  actual  value  of  money,  or  rate  of  interest, 


420  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

with  them  is  high,  because  their  pecuniary  capital  bears  little 
proportion  to  their  landed  interest.  At  an  average  rate,  money 
is  not  worth  less  than  eight  per  cent,  per  annum  throughout  the 
whole  Western  country,  notwithstanding  that  it  has  now  a  loan 
or  an  advance  from  the  bank  of  thirty  millions,  at  six  per  cent. 
To  call  in  this  loan,  at  the  rate  of  eight  millions  a  year,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  interest  on  the  whole,  and  to  take  away,  at  the  same 
time,  that  circulation  which  constitutes  so  great  a  portion  of  the 
medium  of  payment  throughout  that  whole  region,  is  an  opera- 
tion, which,  however  wisely  conducted,  cannot  but  inflict  a  blow 
on  the  community  of  tremendous  force  and  frightful  conse- 
quences. The  thing  cannot  be  done  without  distress,  bankrupt- 
cy, and  ruin,  to  many.  If  the  President  had  seen  any  practical 
manner  in  which  this  change  might  be  effected  without  pro- 
ducing these  consequences,  he  would  have  rendered  infinite  ser- 
vice to  the  community  by  pointing  it  out.  But  he  has  pointed 
out  nothing,  he  has  suggested  nothing;  he  contents  himself 
with  saying,  without  giving  any  reason,  that,  if  the  pressure  be 
heavy,  the  fault  will  be  the  bank's.  I  hope  this  is  not  merely 
an  attempt  to  forestall  opinion,  and  to  throw  on  the  bank  the 
responsibility  of  those  evils  which  threaten  the  country,  for  the 
sake  of  removing  it  from  himself. 

The  responsibility  justly  lies  with  him,  and  there  it  ought  to 
remain.  A  great  majority  of  the  people  are  satisfied  with  the 
bank  as  it  is,  and  desirous  that  it  should  be  continued.  They 
wished  no  change.  The  strength  of  this  public  sentiment  has 
carried  the  bill  through  Congress,  against  all  the  influence  of 
the  administration,  and  all  the  power  of  organized  party.  But 
the  President  has  undertaken,  on  his  own  responsibility,  to 
arrest  the  measure,  by  refusing  his  assent  to  the  bill.  He  is 
answerable  for  the  consequences,  therefore,  which  necessarily 
follow  the  change  which  the  expiration  of  the  bank  charter  may 
produce ;  and  if  these  consequences  shall  prove  disastrous,  they 
can  fairly  be  ascribed  to  his  policy  only,  and  the  policy  of  his 
administration. 

Although,  Sir,  I  have  spoken  of  the  effects  of  this  veto  in  the 
Western  country,  it  has  not  been  because  I  considered  that  part 
of  the  United  States  exclusively  affected  by  it.  Some  of  the 
Atlantic  States  may  feel  its  consequences,  perhaps,  as  sensibly 
as  those  of  the  West,  though  not  for  the  same  reasons.  The 


OF  THE   UNITED  STATES   BANK   BILL.  421 

concern  manifested  by  Pennsylvania  for  the  renewal  of  the 
charter  shows  her  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  bank  to  her 
own  interest,  and  that  of  the  nation.  That  great  and  enterpris- 
ing State  has  entered  into  an  extensive  system  of  internal  im- 
provements, which  necessarily  makes  heavy  demands  on  her 
credit  and  her  resources ;  and  by  the  sound  and  acceptable  cur- 
rency which  the  bank  affords,  by  the  stability  which  it  gives  to 
private  credit,  and  by  occasional  advances,  made  in  anticipation 
of  her  revenues,  and  in  aid  of  her  great  objects,  she  has  found 
herself  benefitted,  doubtless,  in  no  inconsiderable  degree.  Hei 
legislature  has  instructed  her  Senators  here  to  advocate  the 
renewal  of  the  charter,  at  this  session.  They  have  obeyed  her 
voice,  and  yet  they  have  the  misfortune  to  find  that,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  President,  the  measure  is  unconstitutional,  unnecessa- 
ry, dangerous  to  liberty,  and  is,  moreover,  ill-timed. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  not  the  local  interest  of  the  West, 
nor  the  particular  interest  of  Pennsylvania,  or  any  other  State, 
which  has  influenced  Congress  in  passing  this  bill.  It  has 
been  governed  by  a  wise  foresight,  and  by  a  desire  to  avoid 
embarrassment  in  the  pecuniary  concerns  of  the  country,  to 
secure  the  safe  collection  and  convenient  transmission  of  pub- 
lic moneys,  to  maintain  the  circulation  of  the  country,  sound 
and  safe  as  it  now  happily  is,  against  the  possible  effects  of  a 
wild  spirit  of  speculation.  Finding  the  bank  highly  useful,  Con- 
gress has  thought  fit  to  provide  for  its  continuance. 

As  to  the  time  of  passing  this  bill,  it  would  seem  to  be  the 
last  thing  to  be  thought  of,  as  a  ground  of  objection,  by  the 
President;  since,  from  the  date  of  his  first  message  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  he  has  never  failed  to  call  our  attention  to  the  subject 
with  all  possible  apparent  earnestness.  So  early  as  December, 
1829,  in  his  message  to  the  two  houses,  he  declares,  that  he 
"  cannot,  in  justice  to  the  parties  interested,  too  soon  present  the 
subject  to  the  deliberate  consideration  of  the  legislature,  in  or- 
der to. avoid  the  evils  resulting  from  precipitancy,  in  a  measure 
involving  such  important  principles  and  such  deep  pecuniary 
interests."  Aware  of  this  early  invitation  given  to  Congress  to 
take  up  the  subject,  by  the  President  himself,  the  writer  of  the 
message  seems  to  vary  the  ground  of  objection,  and,  instead  of 
complaining  that  the  time  of  bringing  forward  this  measure  was 
premature,  to  insist,  rather,  that,  after  the  report  of  the  commit- 

VOL.  in.  36 


422  THE  PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 

tee  of  the  other  house,  the  bank  should  have  withdrawn  its  ap- 
plication for  the  present!  But  that  report  offers  no  just  ground, 
surely,  for  such  withdrawal.  The  subject  was  before  Congress ; 
it  w*as  for  Congress  to  decide  upon  it,  with  all  the  light  shed 
by  the  report ;  and  the  question  of  postponement,  having  been 
made  in  both  houses,  was  lost,  by  clear  majorities,  in  each. 
Under  such  circumstances,  it  would  have  been  somewhat  singu- 
lar, to  say  the  least,  if  the  bank  itself  had  withdrawn  its  appli- 
cation. It  is  indeed  known  to  every  body,  that  neither  the  re- 
port of  the  committee,  nor  any  thing  contained  in  that  report, 
was  relied  on  by  the  opposers  of  the  renewal.  If  it  has  been 
discovered  elsewhere,  that  that  report  contained  matter  impor- 
tant in  itself,  or  which  should  have  led  to  further  inquiry,  this 
may  be  proof  of  superior  sagacity ;  for  certainly  no  such  thing 
was  discerned  by  either  House  of  Congress. 

But,  Sir,  do  we  not  now  see  that  it  was  time,  and  high  time, 
to  press  this  bill,  and  to  send  it  to  the  President  ?  Does  not  the 
event  teach  us,  that  the  measure  was  not  brought  forward  one 
moment  too  early  ?  The  time  had  come  when  the  people 
wished  to  know  the  decision  of  the  administration  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  bank.  Why  conceal  it,  or  postpone  its  declaration  ? 
Why,  as  in  regard  to  the  tariff,  give  out  one  set  of  opinions  for 
the  North,  and  another  for  the  South. 

An  important  election  is  at  hand,  and  the  renewal  of  the  bank 
charter  is  a  pending  object  of  great  interest,  and  some  excite- 
ment. Should  not  the  opinions  of  men  high  in  office,  and  candi- 
dates for  reelection,  be  known,  on  this,  as  on  other  important  pub- 
lic questions?  Certainly,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  are  not  yet  mere  man-worshippers,  that  they  do 
not  choose  their  rulers  without  some  regard  to  their  political  prin- 
ciples, or  political  opinions.  Were  they  to  do  this,  it  would  be 
1o  subject  themselves  voluntarily  to  the  evils  which  the  heredi- 
tary transmission  of  power,  independent  of  all  personal  qualifi- 
cations, inflicts  on  other  nations.  They  will  judge  their. public 
servants  by  their  acts,  and  continue  or  withhold  their  confidence, 
as  they  shall  think  it  merited,  or  as  they  shall  think  it  forfeited 
Li  every  point  of  view,  therefore,  the  moment  had  arrived,  when 
it  became  the  duty  of  Congress  to  come  to  a  result,  in  regard 
to  this  highly  important  measure.  The  interests  of  the  govern- 
ment, the  interests  of  the  people,  the  clear  and  indisputable  voice 


OF  THE   UNITED  STATES   BANK  BILL.  423 

of  public  opinion,  all  called  upon  Congress  to  act  without  fur- 
ther loss  of  time.  It  has  acted,  and  its  act  has  been  negatived 
by  the  President;  and  this  result  of  the  proceedings  here  places 
the  question,  with  all  its  connections  and  all  its  incidents,  fully 
before  the  people. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  constitutional  question,  there  are 
some  other  topics,  treated  in  the  message,  which  ought  to  be  no- 
ticed. It  commences  by  an  inflamed  statement  of  what  it  calls 
the  "favor"  bestowed  upon  the  original  bank  by  the  govern- 
ment, or,  indeed,  as  it  is  phrased,  the  "  monopoly  of  its  favor 
and  support";  and  through  the  whole  message  all  possible 
ch?nges  are  rung  on  the  "gratuity,"  the  "exclusive  privileges," 
and  "  monopoly,"  of  the  bank  charter.  Now,  Sir,  the  truth  is, 
that  the  powers  conferred  on  the  bank  are  such,  and  no  others, 
as  are  usually  conferred  on  similar  institutions.  They  consti- 
tute no  monopoly,  although  some  of  them  are  of  necessity,  and 
with  propriety,  exclusive  privileges.  "  The  original  act,"  says  the 
message,  "  operated  as  a  gratuity  of  many  millions  to  the  stock- 
holders." What  fair  foundation  is  there  for  this  remark  ?  The 
stockholders  received  their  charter,  not  gratuitously,  but  for  a 
valuable  consideration  in  money,  prescribed  by  Congress,  and 
actually  paid.  At  some  time's  the  stock  has  been  above  par,  at 
other  times  below  par,  according  to  prudence  in  management, 
or  according  to  commercial  occurrences.  But  if,  by  a  judicious 
administration  of  .its  affairs,  it  had  kept  its  stock  always  above 
par,  what  pretence  would  there  be,  nevertheless,  for  saying  that 
such  augmentation  of  its  value  was  a  "  gratuity  "  from  govern- 
ment ?  The  message  proceeds  to  declare,  that  the  present  act 
proposes  another  donation,  another  gratuity,  to  the  same  men,  of 
at  least  seven  millions  more.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  an  ex- 
traordinary statement,  and  an  extraordinary  style  of  argument,  for 
such  a  subject  and  on  such  an  occasion.  In  the  first  place,  the  facts 
are  all  assumed ;  they  are  taken  for  true  without  evidence.  There 
are  no  proofs  that  any  benefit  to  that  amount  will  accrue  to  the 
stockholders,  nor  any  experience  to  justify  the  expectation  of  it. 
li  rests  on  random  estimates,  or  mere  conjecture.  But  suppose 
the  continuance  of  the  charter  should  prove  beneficial  to  the 
stockholders ;  do  they  not  pay  for  it  ?  They  give  twice  as  much 
for  a  charter  of  fifteen  years,  as  was  given  before  for  one  of 
twenty.  And  if  the  proposed  bonus,  or  premium,  be  not,  in  the 


424  THE   PRESIDED  HAL   VETO 

President's  judgment,  large  enough,  would  he,  nevertheless,  un 
such  a  mere  matter  of  opinion  as  that,  negative  the  whole  bill  ? 
May  not  Congress  be  trusted  to  decide  even  on  such  a  subject 
as  the  amount  of  the  money  premium  to  be  received  by  govern- 
ment for  a  charter  of  this  kind  ? 

But,  Sir,  there  is  a  larger  and  a  much  more  just  view  of  this 
subject.  The  bill  was  not  passed  for  the  purpose  of  benefiting 
the  present  stockholders.  Their  benefit,  if  any,  is  incidental  and 
collateral.  Nor  was  it  passed  on  any  idea  that  they  had  a  right 
to  a  renewed  charter,  although  the  message  argues  against  such 
right,  as  if  it  had  been  somewhere  set  up  and  asserted.  No 
such  right  has  been  asserted  by  any  body.  Congress  passed  the 
bill,  not  as  a  bounty  or  a  favor  to  the  present  stockholders,  nor 
to  comply  with  any  demand  of  right  on  their  part ;  but  to  pro- 
mote great  public  interests,  for  great  public  objects.  Every  bank 
must  have  some  stockholders,  unless  it  be  such  a  bank  as  the 
President  has  recommended,  and  in  regard  to  which  he  seems 
not  likely  to  find  much  concurrence  of  other  men's  opinions ;  and 
if  the  stockholders,  whoever  they  may  be,  conduct  the  affairs  of 
the  bank  prudently,  the  expectation  is  always,  of  course,  that 
they  will  make  it  profitable  to  themselves,  as  well  as  useful  to 
the  public.  If  a  bank  charter  is  not  to  be  granted,  because,  to 
some  extent,  it  may  be  profitable  to  the  stockholders,  no  charter 
can  be  granted.  The  objection  lies  against  all  banks. 

Sir,  the  object  aimed  at  by  such  institutions  is  to  connect  the 
public  safety  and  convenience  with  private  interests.  It  has 
been  found  by  experience,  that  banks  are  safest  under  private 
management,  and  that  government  banks  are  among  the  most 
dangerous  of  all  inventions.  Now,  Sir,  the  whole  drift  of  the 
message  is  to  reverse  the  settled  judgment  of  all  the  civilized 
world,  and  to  set  up  government  banks,  independent  of  private 
interest  or  private  control.  For  this  purpose  the  message  labors, 
even  beyond  the  measure  of  all  its  other  labors,  to  create  jeal- 
ousies and  prejudices,  on  the  ground  of  the  alleged  benefit  which 
Individuals  will  derive  from  the  renewal  of  this  charter.  Much 
less  effort  is  made  to  show  that  government,  or  the  public,  will 
be  injured  by  the  bill,  than  that  individuals  will  profit  by  it. 
Following  up  the  impulses  of  the  same  spirit,  the  message  goes 
on  gravely  to  allege,  that  the  act,  as  passed  by  Congress,  pro- 
poses to  make  a  present  of  some  millions  of  dollars  to  foreigners 


OF  THE   T.NJTED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  425 

because  a  portion  of  the  stock  is  held  by  foreigners.  Sir,  how 
would  this  sort  of  argument  apply  to  other  cases  ?  The  Presi- 
dent has  shown  himself  not  only  willing,  but  anxious,  to  pay  off 
the  three  per  cent,  stock  of  the  United  States  at  par,  notwith- 
standing that  it  is  notorious  that  foreigners  are  owners  of  the 
greater  part  of  it.  Why  should  he  not  call  that  a  donation  to 
foreigners  of  many  millions  ? 

I  will  not  dwell  particularly  on  this  part  of  the  message.  Us 
tone  and  its  arguments  are  all  in  the  same  strain.  It  speaks  of 
the  certain  gain  of  the  present  stockholders,  of  the  value  of  the 
monopoly;  it  says  that  all  monopolies  are  granted  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  public;  that  the  many  millions  which  this  bill  be- 
stows on  the  stockholders  come  out  of  the  earnings  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  that,  if  government  sells  monopolies,  it  ought  to  sell  them 
in  open  market;  that  it  is  an  erroneous  idea,  that  the  present 
stockholders  have  a  prescriptive  right  either  to  the  favor  or  the 
bounty  of  government;  that  the  stock  is  in  the  hands  of  a  few, 
and  that  the  whole  American  people  are  excluded  from  competi- 
tion in  the  purchase  of  the  monopoly.  To  all  this  I  say,  again, 
that  much  of  it  is  assumption  without  proof;  much  of  it  is  an 
argument  against  that  which  nobody  has  maintained  or  asserted  ; 
and  the  rest  of  it  would  be  equally  strong  against  any  charter, 
at  any  time.  These  objections  existed  in  their  full  strength, 
whatever  that  was,  against  the  first  bank.  They  existed,  in  like 
manner,  against  the  present  bank  at  its  creation,  and  will  al- 
ways exist  against  all  banks.  Indeed,  all  the  fault  found  with 
the  bill  now  before  us  is,  that  it  proposes  to  continue  the  bank 
substantially  as  it  now  exists.  "  All  the  objectionable  princi- 
ples of  the  existing  corporation,"  says  the  message,  "  and  most 
of  its  odious  features,  are  retained  without  alleviation  "  ;  so  that 
the  message  is  aimed  against  the  bank,  as  it  has  existed  from 
the  first,  and  against  any  and  all  others  resembling  it  in  its  gen- 
eral features. 

Allow  me,  now,  Sir,  to  take  notice  of  an  argument  founded 
on  the  practical  operation  of  the  bank.  That  argument  is  this. 
Little  of  the  stock  of  the  bank  is  held  in  the  West,  the  capital 
being  chiefly  owned  by  citizens  of  the  Southern  and  Eastern 
States,  and  by  foreigners.  But  the  Western  and  Southwestern 
States  owe  the  bank  a  heavy  debt,  so  heavy  that  the  interest 
amounts  to  a  million  six  hundred  thousand  a  year.  This  inter- 
36* 


426  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

est  is  carried  to  the  Eastern  States,  or  to  Europe,  annually,  anil 
its  payment  is  a  burden  on  the  people  of  the  West,  and  a  drain 
of  their  currency,  which  no  country  can  bear  without  inconven- 
ience and  distress.  The  true  character  and  the  whole  value  of 
this  argument  are  manifest  by  the  mere  statement  of  it.  The 
people  of  the  West  are,  from  their  situation,  necessarily  large 
borrowers.  They  need  money,  capital,  and  they  borrow  it,  be- 
cause they  can  derive  a  benefit  from  its  use,  much  beyond  the 
interest  which  they  pay.  They  borrow  at  six  per  cent,  of  the 
bank,  although  the  value  of  money  with  them  is  at  least  as  high 
as  eight.  Nevertheless,  although  they  borrow  at  this  low  rate 
of  interest,  and  although  they  use  all  they  borrow  thus  profita- 
bly, yet  they  cannot  pay  the  interest  without  "inconvenience 
and  distress";  and  then,  Sir,  follows  the  logical  conclusion, 
that,  although  they  cannot  pay  even  the  interest  without  incon- 
venience and  distress,  yet  less  than  four  years  is  ample  time 
for  the  bank  to  call  in  the  whole,  both  principal  and  interest, 
without  causing  more  than  a  light  pressure.  This  is  the  argu- 
ment. 

Then  follows  another,  which  may  be  thus  stated.  It  is  com- 
petent to  the  States  to  tax  the  property  of  their  citizens  vested 
in  the  stock  of  this  bank ;  but  the  power  is  denied  of  taxing  the 
stock  of  foreigners ;  therefore  the  stock  will  be  worth  ten  or  fif- 
teen per  cent,  more  to  foreigners  than  to  residents,  and  will  of 
course  inevitably  leave  the  country,  and  make  the  American 
people  debtors  to  aliens  in  nearly  the  whole  amount  due  the 
bank,  and  send  across  the  Atlantic  from  two  to  five  millions  of 
specie  every  year,  to  pay  the  bank  dividends. 

Mr.  President,  arguments  like  these  might  be  more  readily 
disposed  of,  were  it  not  that  the  high  and  official  source  from 
which  they  proceed  imposes  the  necessity  of  treating  them  with 
respect.  In  the  first  place,  it  may  safely  be  denied  that  the 
stock  of  the  bank  is  any  more  valuable  to  foreigners  than  to  our 
own  citizens,  or  an  object  of  greater  desire  to  them,  except  in  so 
far  as  capital  may  be  more  abundant  in  the  foreign  country,  and 
therefore  its  owners  more  in  want  of  opportunity  of  investment. 
The  foreign  stockholder  enjoys  no  exemption  from  taxation. 
lie  is,  of  course,  taxed  by  his  own  government  for  his  incomes, 
derived  from  this  as  well  as  other  property;  and  this  is  a  full 
answer  to  the  whole  statement.  But  it  may  be  added,  in  the 


OF  THE  UNITED   STATES    BANK   BILL.  427 

second  place,  that  it  is  not  the  practice  of  civilized  states  to  tax. 
the  property  of  foreigners  under  such  circumstances.  Do  we 
tax,  or  did  we  ever  tax,  the  foreign  holders  of  our  public  debt? 
Does  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  or  Ohio  tax  the  foreign  holders 
of  stock  in  the  loans  contracted  by  either  of  these  States  ?  Cer- 
tainly not.  Sir,  I  must  confess  I  had  little  expected  to  see,  on 
such  an  occasion  as  the  present,  a  labored  and  repeated  attempt 
to  produce  an  impression  on  the  public  opinion  unfavorable  to 
the  bank,  from  the  circumstance  that  foreigners  are  among  its 
stockholders.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  I  deem  such 
a  train  of  remark  as  the  message  contains  on  this  point,  com- 
ing from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  be  injurious  to 
the  credit  and  character  of  the  country  abroad ;  because  it  man- 
ifests a  jealousy,  a  lurking  disposition  not  to  respect  the  proper- 
ty, of  foreigners  invited  hither  by  our  own  laws.  And,  Sir,  what 
is  its  tendency  but  to  excite  this  jealousy,  and  create  groundless 
prejudices  ? 

From  the  commencement  of  the  government,  it  has  been 
thought  desirable  to  invite,  rather  than  to  repel,  the  introduction 
of  foreign  capital.  Our  stocks  have  all  been  open  to  foreign 
subscriptions ;  and  the  State  banks,  in  like  manner,  are  free  to 
foreign  ownership.  Whatever  State  has  created  a  debt  has 
been  willing  that  foreigners  should  become  purchasers,  and  de- 
sirous of  it.  How  long  is  it,  Sir,  since  Congress  itself  passed  a 
law  vesting  new  powers  in  the  President  of  the  United  States 
over  the  cities  in  this  District,  for  the  very  purpose  of  increasing 
their  credit  abroad,  the  better  to  enable  them  to  borrow  money 
to  pay  their  subscriptions  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal? 
It  is  easy  to  say  that  there  is  danger  to  liberty,  danger  to  inde- 
pendence, in  a  bank  open  to  foreign  stockholders,  because  it  is 
easy  to  say  any  thing.  But  neither  reason  nor  experience  proves 
any  such  danger.  The  foreign  stockholder  cannot  be  a  director. 
He  has  no  voice  even  in  the  choice  of  directors.  His  money  is 
placed  entirely  in  the  management  of  the  directors  appointed  by 
the  President  and  Senate  and  by  the  American  stockholders. 
So  far  as  there  is  dependence  or  influence  either  way,  it  is  to 
the  disadvantage  of  the  foreign  stockholder.  He  has  parted 
with  the  control  over  his  own  property,  instead  of  exercising 
control  over  the  property  or  over  the  actions  of  others.  And, 
Sir,  let  it  now  be  added,  in  further  answer  to  this  clasp  of  objeo 


f28  THE   PRESIDENTIAL    VETO 

lions,  that  experience  has  abundantly  confuted  them  all.  This 
government  has  existed  forty-three  years,  and  has  maintained, 
in  full  being  and  operation,  a  bank,  such  as  is  now  proposed  to 
be  renewed,  for  thirty-six  years  out  of  the  forty-three.  We  have 
never  for  a  moment  had  a  bank  not  subject  to  every  one  of 
these  objections.  Always,  foreigners  might  be  stockholders ; 
always,  foreign  stock  has  been  exempt  from  State  taxation,  as 
much  as  at  present;  always,  the  same  power  and  privileges; 
always,  all  that  which  is  now  called  a  "  monopoly,"  a  "  gratu- 
ity," a  "  present,"  have  been  possessed  by  the  bank.  And  yet 
there  has  been  found  no  danger  to  liberty,  no  introduction  of 
foreign  influence,  and  no  accumulation  of  irresponsible  power  in 
a  few  hands.  I  cannot  but  hope,  therefore,  that  the  people  of 
the  United  States  will  not  now  yield  up  their  judgment  to  those 
notions  which  would  reverse  all  our  best  experience,  and  per- 
suade us  to  discontinue  a  useful  institution  from  the  influence 
of  vague  and  unfounded  declamation  against  its  danger  to  the 
public  liberties.  Our  liberties,  indeed,  must  stand  upon  very 
frail  foundations,  if  the  government  cannot,  without  endanger- 
ing them,  avail  itself  of  those  common  facilities,  in  the  collection 
of  its  revenues  and  the  management  of  its  finances,  which  all 
other  governments,  in  commercial  countries,  find  useful  and  ne- 
cessary. 

In  order  to  justify  its  alarm  for  the  security  of  our  independ- 
ence, the  message  supposes  a  case.  It  supposes  that  the  bank 
should  pass  principally  into  the  hands  .of  the  subjects  of  a  for- 
eign country,  and  that  we  should  be  involved  in  war  with  that 
country,  and  then  it  exclaims,  "What  would  be  our  condition?" 
Why,  Sir,  it  is  plain  that  all  the  advantages  would  be  on  our 
side.  The  bank  would  still  be  our  institution,  subject  to  our 
own  laws,  and  all  its  directors  elected  by  ourselves ;  and  our 
means  would  be  enhanced,  not  by  the  confiscation  and  plunder, 
but  by  the  proper  use,  of  the  foreign  capital  in  our  hands.  And, 
Sir,  it  is  singular  enough,  that  this  very  state  of  war,  from  which 
this  argument  against  a  bank  is  drawn,  is  the  very  thing  which, 
more  than  all  others,  convinced  the  country  and  the  government 
of  the  necessity  of  a  national  bank.  So  much  was  the  want  of 
such  an  institution  felt  in  the  late  war,  that  the  subject  engaged 
the  attention  of  Congress,  constantly,  from  the  declaration  of 
that  war  down  to  the  time  when  the  existing  bank  was  actually 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  429 

established;  so  that  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  in  others,  the 
argument  of  the  message  is  directly  opposed  to  the  whole  ex- 
perience of  the  government,  and  to  the  general  and  long-settled 
convictions  of  the  country. 

I  now  proceed,  Sir,  to  a  few  remarks  upon  the  President's 
constitutional  objections  to  the  bank ;  and  I  cannot  forbear  to 
say,  in  regard  to  them,  that  he  appears  to  me  to  have  assumed 
very  extraordinary  grounds  of  reasoning.  He  denies  that  the 
constitutionality  of  the  bank  is  a  settled  question.  If  it  be  not, 
will  it  ever  become  so,  or  what  disputed  question  ever  can  be 
settled?  I  have  already  observed,  that  for  thirty-six  years  out 
of  the  forty-three  during  which  the  government  has  been  in 
being,  a  bank  has  existed,  such  as  is  now  proposed  to  be  con- 
tinued. 

As  early  as  1791,  after  great  deliberation,  the  first  bank  char- 
ter was  passed  by  Congress,  and  approved  by  President  Wash- 
ington. It  established  an  institution,  resembling,  in  all  things 
now  objected  to,  the  present  bank.  That  bank,  like  this,  could 
take  lands  in  payment  of  its  debts ;  that  charter,  like  the  present, 
gave  the  States  no  power  of  taxation ;  it  allowed  foreigners  to 
hold  stock;  it  restrained  Congress  from  creating  other  banks. 
It  gave  also  exclusive  privileges,  and  in  all  particulars  it  was, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  message,  as  objectionable  as 
that  now  existing.  That  bank  continued  twenty  years.  In 
1816,  the  present  institution  was  established,  and  has  been  ever 
since  in  full  operation.  Now,  Sir,  the  question  of  the  power  of 
Congress  to  create  such  institutions  has  been  contested  in  every 
manner  known  to  our  Constitution  and  laws.  The  forms  of 
the  government  furnish  no  new  mode  in  which  to  try  this  ques- 
tion. It  has  been  discussed  over  and  over  again,  in  Congress ; 
it  has  been  argued  and  solemnly  adjudged  in  the  Supreme 
Court ;  every  President,  except  the  present,  has  considered  it  a 
settled  question ;  many  of  the  State  legislatures  have  instructed 
their  Senators  to  vote  for  the  bank ;  the  tribunals  of  the  States, 
in  every  instance,  have  supported  its  constitutionality ;  and,  be- 
yond all  doubt  and  dispute,  the  general  public  opinion  of  the 
country  has  at  all  times  given,  and  does  now  give,  its  full  sanc- 
tion and  approbation  to  the  exercise  of  this  power,  as  being  a 
constitutional  power.  There  has  been  no  opinion  questioning 
the  power  expressed  or  intimated,  at  any  time,  by  either  house 


430  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

of  Congress,  by  any  President,  or  by  any  respectable  judicial 
tribunal.  Now,  Sir,  if  this  practice  of  near  forty  years,  if  these 
repeated  exercises  of  the  power,  if  this  solemn  adjudication  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  with  the  concurrence  and  approbation  of 
public  opinion,  do  not  settle  the  question,  how  is  any  question 
ever  to  be  settled,  about  which  any  one  may  choose  to  raise  a 
doubt? 

The  argument  of  the  message  upon  the  Congressional  pre- 
cedents is  either  a  bold  and  gross  fallacy,  or  else  it  is  an  asser- 
tion without  proofs,  and  against  known  facts.  The  message 
admits,  that,  in  1791,  Congress  decided  in  favor  of  a  bank ;  but 
it  adds,  that  another  Congress,  in  1811,  decided  against  it. 
Now,  if  it  be  meant  that,  in  1811,  Congress  decided  against  the 
bank  on  constitutional  ground,  then  the  assertion  is  wholly  in- 
correct, and  against  notorious  fact.  It  is  perfectly  well  known, 
that  many  members,  in  both  houses,  voted  against  the  bank  in 
1811,  who  had  no  doubt  at  all  of  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress.  They  were  entirely  governed  by  other  reasons  given 
at  the  time.  I  appeal,  Sir,  to  the  honorable  member  from  Mary- 
land, who  was  then  a  member  of  the  Senate,  and  voted  against 
the  bank,  whether  he,  and  others  who  were  on  the  same  side, 
did  not  give  those  v.otes  on  other  well-known  grounds,  and  not 
at  all  on  constitutional  ground  ? 

General  Smith  here  rose,  and  said,  that  he  voted  against  the  bank  in 
1811,  but  not  at  all  on  constitutional  grounds,  and  had  no  doubt  such 
was  the  case  with  other  members. 

We  all  know,  Sir,  the  fact  to  be  as  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land has  stated  it.  Every  man  who  recollects,  or  who  has  read, 
the  political  occurrences  of  that  day,  knows  it.  Therefore,  if  the 
message  intends  to  say,  that  in  1811  Congress  denied  the  exist- 
ence of  any  such  constitutional  power,  the  declaration  is  un- 
warranted, and  altogether  at  variance  with  the  facts.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  only  intends  to  say,  that  Congress  decided  against 
the  proposition  then  before  it  on  some  other  grounds,  then  it  al- 
leges that  which  is  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose.  The  argu- 
ment, then,  either  assumes  for  truth  that  which  is  not  true,  or 
else  the  whole  statement  is  immaterial  and  futile. 

But  whatever  value  others  may  attach  to  this  argument,  the 
message  thinks  so  highly  of  it,  that  it  proceeds  to  repeat,  it. 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK  BILL  431 

"  One  Congress,"  it  says,  "  in  1815,  decided  against  a  bank', 
another,  in  1816,  decided  in  its  favor.  There  is  nothing  in  pre- 
cedent, therefore,  which,  if  its  authority  were  admitted,  ought 
to  weigh  in  favor  of  the  act  before  me."  Now,  Sir,  since  it  is 
known  to  the  whole  country,  one  cannot  but  wonder  how  it 
should  remain  unknown  to  the  President,  that  Congress  did  not 
decide  against  a  bank  in  1815.  On  the  contrary,  that  very 
Congress  passed  a  bill  for  erecting  a  bank,  by  very  large  ma- 
jorities. In  one  form,  it  is  true,  the  bill  failed  in  the  House  of 
Representatives ;  but  the  vote  was  reconsidered,  the  bill  recom- 
mitted, and  finally  passed  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  twenty 
to  thirty-nine.  There  is,  therefore,  not  only  no  solid  ground,  but 
not  even  any  plausible  pretence,  for  the  assertion,  that  Congress 
in  1815  decided  against  the  bank.  That  very  Congress  passed 
a  bill  to  create  a  bank,  and  its  decision,  therefore,  is  precisely 
the  other  way,  and  is  a  direct  practical  precedent  in  favor  of  the 
constitutional  power.  What  are  we  to  think  of  a  constitutional 
argument  which  deals  in  this  way  with  historical  facts  ?  When 
the  message  declares,  as  it  does  declare,  that  there  is  nothing  in 
precedent  which  ought  to  weigh  in  favor  of  the  power,  it  sets  at 
naught  repeated  acts  of  Congress  affirming  the  power,  and  it 
also  states  other  acts,  which  were  in  fact,  and  which  are  well 
known  to  have  been,  directly  the  reverse  of  what  the  message 
represents  them.  There  is  not,  Sir,  the  slightest  reason  to  think 
that  any  Senate  or  any  House  of  Representatives,  ever  assem- 
bled under  the  Constitution,  contained  a  majority  that  doubted 
the  constitutional  existence  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  estab- 
lish a  bank.  Whenever  the  question  has  arisen,  and  has  been 
decided,  it  has  always  been  decided  one  way.  The  legislative 
precedents  all  assert  and  maintain  the  power ;  and  these  legis- 
lative precedents  have  been  the  law  of  the  land  for  almost  forty 
years.  They  settle  the  construction  of  the  Constitution,  and 
sanction  the  exercise  of  the  power  in  question,  so  far  as  these 
effects  can  ever  be  produced  by  any  legislative  precedents  what- 
ever. 

But  the  President  does  not  admit  the  authority  of  precedent. 
Sir,  I  have  always  found,  that  those  who  habitually  deny  mo?t 
vehemently  the  general  force  of  precedent,  and  assert  most 
strongly  the  supremacy  of  private  opinion,  are  yet,  of  all  men, 
most  tenacious  of  that  very  authority  of  precedent,  whenever  it 


432  THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 

happens  to  be  in  their  favor.  I  beg  leave  to  ask,  Sir,  upon  what 
ground,  except  that  of  precedent,  and  precedent  alone,  the  Pres- 
ident's friends  have  placed  his  power  of  removal  from  office.  No 
such  power  is  given  by  the  Constitution,  in  terms,  nor  any- 
where intimated,  throughout  the  whole  of  it;  no  paragraph  or 
clause  of  that  instrument  recognizes  such  a  power.  To  say  the 
least,  it  is  as  questionable,  and  has  been  as  often  questioned,  as 
the  power  of  Congress  to  create  a  bank;  and,  enlightened  by 
what  has  passed  under  our  own  observation,  we  now  see  that 
it  is  of  all  powers  the  most  capable  of  flagrant  abuse.  Now, 
Sir,  I  ask  again,  What  becomes  of  this  power,  if  the  authority 
of  precedent  be  taken  away  ?  It  has  all  along  been  denied  to 
exist ;  it  is  nowhere  found  in  the  Constitution ;  and  its  recent 
exercise,  or,  to  call  things  by  their  right  names,  its  recent  abuse, 
has,  more  than  any  other  single  cause,  rendered  good  rnen  either 
cool  in  their  affections  toward  the  government  of  their  country, 
or  doubtful  of  its  long  continuance.  Yet  there  is  precedent  in 
favor  of  this  power,  and  the  President  exercises  it.  We  know, 
Sir,  that,  without  the  aid  of  that  precedent,  his  acts  could  never 
have  received  the  sanction  of  this  body,  even  at  a  time  when 
his  voice  was  somewhat  more  potential  here  than  it  now  is,  or, 
as  I  trust,  ever  again  will  be.  Does  the  President,  then,  reject 
the  authority  of  all  precedent  except  what  it  is  suitable  to  his 
own  purpose  to  use  ?  And  does  he  use,  without  stint  or  meas- 
ure, all  precedents  which  may  augment  his  own  power,  or  grat- 
ify his  own  wishes  ? 

But  if  the  President  thinks  lightly  of  the  authority  of  Congress 
in  construing  the  Constitution,  he  thinks  still  more  lightly  of  the 
authority  of  the  Supreme  Court.  He  asserts  a  right  of  individ- 
ual judgment  on  constitutional  questions,  which  is  totally  in- 
consistent with  any  proper  administration  of  the  government,  or 
any  regular  execution  of  the  laws.  Social  disorder,  entire  uncer- 
tainty in  regard  to  individual  rights  and  individual  duties,  the 
cessation  of  legal  authority,  confusion,  the  dissolution  of  free 
government,  —  all  these  are  the  inevitable  consequences  of  the 
principles  adopted  by  the  message,  whenever  they  shall  be  car- 
ried to  their  full  extent.  Hitherto  it  has  been  thought  that  the 
final  decision  of  constitutional  questions  belonged  to  the  su- 
preme judicial  tribunal.  The  very  nature  of  free  government, 
it  has  been  supposed,  enjoins  this ;  and  our  Constitution,  more- 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  433 

over,  has  been  understood  so  to  provide,  clearly  and  express- 
ly. It  is  true,  that  each  branch  of  the  legislature  has  an  un- 
doubted right,  in  the  exercise  of  its  functions,  to  consider  the 
constitutionality  of  a  law  proposed  to  be  passed.  This  is  nat- 
urally a  part  of  its  duty;  and  neither  branch  can  be  com- 
pelled to  pass  any  law,  or  do  any  other  act,  which  it  deems  to 
be  beyond  the  reach  of  its  constitutional  power.  The  President 
has  the  same  right,  when  a  bijl  is  presented  for  his  approval ; 
for  he  is,  doubtless,  bound  to  consider,  in  all  cases,  whether 
such  bill  be  compatible  with  the  Constitution,  and  whether  he 
can  approve  it  consistently  with  his  oath  of  office.  But  when 
a  law  has  been  passed  by  Congress,  and  approved  by  the  Pres- 
ident, it  is  now  no  longer  in  the  power,  either  of  the  same  Pres- 
ident, or  his  successors,  to  say  whether  the  law  is  constitutional 
or  not.  He  is  not  at  liberty  to  disregard  it ;  he  is  not  at  liberty 
to  feel  or  to  affect  "  constitutional  scruples,"  and  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment himself  on  the  validity  of  a  statute  of  the  government,  and 
to  nullify  it,  if  he  so  chooses.  After  a  law  has  passed  through  - 
all  the  requisite  forms ;  after  it  has  received  the  requisite  legis- 
lative sanction  and  the  executive  approval,  the  question  of 
its  constitutionality  then  becomes  a  judicial  question,  and 
a  judicial  question  alone.  In  the  courts  that  question  may 
be  raised,  argued,  and  adjudged ;  it  can  be  adjudged  nowhere 
else. 

The  President  is  as  much  bound  by  the  law  as  any  private 
citizen,  and  can  no  more  contest  its  validity  than  any  private 
citizen.  He  may  refuse  to  obey  the  law,  and  so  may  a  private 
citizen ;  but  both  do  it  at  their  own  peril,  and  neither  of  them 
can  settle  the  question  of  its  validity.  The  President  may  say  a 
law  is  unconstitutional,  but  he  is  not  the  judge.  Who  is  to  de- 
cide that  question  ?  The  judiciary  alone  possesses  this  unques- 
tionable and  hitherto  unquestioned  right.  The  judiciary  is  the 
constitutional  tribunal  ot  appeal  for  the  citizens,  against  both 
Congress  and  the  executive,  in  regard  to  the  constitutionality 
of  laws.  It  has  this  jurisdiction  expressly  conferred  upon  it,  and 
when  it  has  decided  the  question,  its  judgment  must,  from  the 
very  nature  of  all  judgments  that  are  final,  and  from  which 
there  is  no  appeal,  be  conclusive.  Hitherto,  this  opinion,  and  a 
correspondent  practice,  have  prevailed,  in  America,  with  all  wise 
and  considerate  men.  If  it  were  otherwise,  there  would  be  no 

VOL.  in.  37 


434  THE   PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

government  of  laws ;  but  we  should  all  live  under  the  govern- 
ment, the  rule,  the  caprices^  of  individuals.  If  we  depart  from 
the  observance  of  these  salutary  principles,  the  executive  power 
becomes  at  once  purely  despotic ;  for  the  President,  if  the  principle 
and  the  reasoning  of  the  message  be  sound,  may  either  execute 
or  not  execute  the  laws  of  the  land,  according  to  his  sovereign 
pleasure.  He  may  refuse  to  put  into  execution  one  law,  pro- 
nounced valid  by  all  branches  of  the  government,  and  yet  exe- 
cute am  ther,  which  may  have  been  by  constitutional  authority 
pronounced  void. 

On  the  argument  of  the  message,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  holds,  under  a  new  pretence  and  a  new  name,  a  dispens- 
ing- power  over  the  laws  as  absolute  as  was  claimed  by  James 
the  Second  of  England,  a  month  before  he  was  compelled  to  fly 
the  kingdom.  That  which  is  now  claimed  by  the  President  is 
in  truth  nothing  less,  and  nothing  else,  than  the  old  dispensing 
power  asserted  by  the  kings  of  England  in  the  worst  of  times ; 
the  very  climax,  indeed,  of  all  the  preposterous  pretensions  of 
the  Tudor  and  the  Stuart  races.  According  to  the  doctrines 
put  forth  by  the  President,  although  Congress  may  have  passed 
a  law,  and. although  the  Supreme  Court  may  have  pronounced 
it  constitutional,  yet  it  is,  nevertheless,  no  law  at  all,  if  he,  in  his 
good  pleasure,  sees  fit  to  deny  it  effect ;  in  other  words,  to  repeal 
and  annul  it.  Sir,  no  President  and  no  public  man  ever  before 
advanced  such  doctrines  in  the  face  of  the  nation.  There  never 
before  was  a  moment  in  which  any  President  would  have  been 
tolerated  in  asserting  such  a  claim  to  despotic  power.  After 
Congress  has  passed  the  law,  and  after  the  Supreme  Court  has 
pronounced  its  judgment  on  the  very  point  in  controversy,  the 
President  has  set  up  his  own  private  judgment  against  its  con- 
stitutional interpretation.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  Sir,  that  it  is 
the  present  law,  it  is  the  act  of  1816,  it  is  the  present  charter  of 
the  bank,  which  the  President  pronounces  to  be  unconstitutional. 
It  is  no  bank  to  be  created,  it  is  no  law  proposed  to  be  passed, 
whici  i  he  denounces ;  it  is  the  law  now  existing',  passed  by  Con- 
gress, approved  by  President  Madison,  and  sanctioned  by  a 
solemn  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  he  now  declares 
unconstitutional,  and  which,  of  course,  so  far  as  it  may  depend 
on  him,  cannot  be  executed.  If  these  opinions  of  the  President 
be  maintained,  there  is  an  end  of  all  law  and  all  judicial  author- 


OF  THE    UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  435 

ity.  Statutes  are  but  recommendations,  judgments  no  more 
than  opinions.  Both  are  equally  destitute  of  binding  force. 
Such  a  universal  power  as  is  now  claimed  for  him,  a  power  of 
judging  over  the  laws  and  over  the  decisions  of  the  judiciary,  is 
nothing  else  but  pure  despotism.  If  conceded  to  him,  it  makes 
him  at  once  what  Louis  the  Fourteenth  proclaimed  himself  to 
be  when  he  said,  "  I  am  the  State." 

The  Supreme  Court  has  unanimously  declared  and  adjudged 
that  the  existing  bank  is  created  by  a  constitutional  law  of  Con- 
gress. As  has  been  before  observed,  this  bank,  so  far  as  the 
present  question  is  concerned,  is  like  that  which  was  established 
in  1791  by  Washington,  and  sanctioned  by  the  great  men  of 
that  day.  In  every  form,  therefore,  in  which  the  question  can  be 
raised,  it  has  been  raised  and  has  been  settled.  Every  process 
and  every  mode  of  trial  known  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  have 
been  exhausted,  and  always  and  without  except,  ^n  the  decision 
has  been  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  the  Jaw.  But  all  this  prac- 
tice, all  this  precedent,  all  this  publL  approbation,  all  this  sol- 
emn  adjudication  directly  on  the  point,  is  to  be  disregarded  and 
rejected,  and  the  constitutiona.  power  flatly  denied.  And,  Sir, 
if  we  are  startled  at  this  conclusion,  our  surprise  will  not  be 
lessened  when  we  examine  the  argument  by  which  it  is  main- 
tained. 

By  the  Constitution,  Congress  is  authorized  to  pass  all  laws 
"  necessary  and  proper "  for  carrying  its  own  legislative  pow 
ers  into  effect.  Congress  has  deemed  a  bank  to  be  "neces- 
sary and  proper "  for  these  purposes,  and  it  has  therefore  estab- 
lished a  bank.  But  although  the  law  has  been  passed,  and  the 
bank  established,  and  the  constitutional  validity  of  its  charter 
solemnly  adjudged,  yet  the  President  pronounces  it  unconstitu- 
tional, because  some  of  the  powers  bestowed  on  the  bank  are,  in 
his  opinion,  not  necessary  or  proper.  It  would  appear  that 
powers  which  in  1791  and  in  1816,  in  the  time  of  Washington 
and  in  the  time  of  Madison,  were  deemed  "  necessary  and 
proper,"  are  no  longer  to  be  so  regarded,  and  therefore  the  bank 
is  unconstitutional.  It  has  really  come  to  this,  that  the  consti- 
tutionality of  a  bank  is  to  depend  upon  the  opinion  which  one 
particular  man  may  form  of  the  utility  or  necessity  of  some  of 
the  clauses  in  its  charter !  If  that  individual  chooses  to  think 
that  a  particular  power  contained  in  the  charter  is  not  necessary 


436  THE   PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

to  the  proper  constitution  of  the  bank,  then  the  act  is  unconsti- 
tutional ! 

Hitherto  it  has  always  been  supposed  that  the  question  was 
of  a  very  different  nature.  It  has  been  thought  that  the  policy 
of  granting  a  particular  charter  may  be  materially  dependent  on 
the  structure  and  organization  and  powers  of  the  proposed  insti- 
tution. But  its  general  constitutionality  has  never  before  been 
understood  to  turn  on  such  points.  This  would  be  making  it? 
constitutionality  depend  on  subordinate  questions ;  on  questions 
of  expediency  and  questions  of  detail;  upon  that  which  one 
man  may  think  necessary,  and  another  may  not.  If  the  consti- 
tutional question  were  made  to  hinge  on  matters  of  this  kind, 
how  could  it  ever  be  decided  1  All  would  depend  on  conjecture ; 
on  the  complexional  feeling,  on  the  prejudices,  on  the  passions, 
of  individuals ;  on  more  or  less  practical  skill  or  correct  judg- 
ment in  regard  to  banking  operations  among  those  who  should 
be  the  judges;  on  the  impulse  of  momentary  interests,  party 
objects,  or  personal  purposes.  Put  the  question  in  this  manner 
to  a  court  of  seven  judges,  to  decide  whether  a  particular 
bank  was  constitutional,  and  it  might  be  doubtful  whether 
they  could  come  to  any  result,  as  they  might  well  hold  very 
various  opinions  on  the  practical  utility  of  many  clauses  of  the 
charter. 

The  question  in  that  case  would  be,  not  whether  the  bank,  in 
its  general  frame,  character,  and  objects,  was  a  proper  instru- 
ment to  carry  into  effect  the  powers  of  the  government,  but 
whether  the  particular  powers,  direct  or  incidental,  conferred  on 
a  particular  bank,  were  better  calculated  than  all  others  to  give 
success  to  its  operations.  For  if  not,  then  the  charter,  according 
to  this  sort  of  reasoning,  would  be  unwarranted  by  the  Consti- 
tution. This  mode  of  construing  the  Constitution  is  certainly 
a  novel  discovery.  Its  merits  belong  entirely  to  the  President 
and  his  advisers.  According  to  this  rule  of  interpretation,  if  the 
President  should  be  of  opinion,  that  the  capital  of  the  bank  was 
larger,  by  a  thousand  dollars,  than  it  ought  to  be ;  or  that  the 
time  for  the  continuance  of  the  charter  was  a  year  too  long;  or 
that  it  was  unnecessary  to  require  it,  under  penalty,  to  pay  spe- 
cie ;  or  needless  to  provide  for  punishing,  as  forgery,  the  coun- 
terfeiting of  its  bills,  —  either  of  these  reasons  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  render  the  charter,  in  his  opinion,  unconstitutional,  in- 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  437 

valid,  and  nugatory.  This  is  a  legitimate  conclusion  from  the 
argument.  Such  a  view  of  the  subject  has  certainly  never  be- 
fore been  taken.  This'train  of  reasoning  has  hitherto  not  been 
heard  within  the  halls  of  Congress,  nor  has  any  one  ventured 
upon  it  before  the  tribunals  of  justice.  The  first  exhibition,  its 
first  appearance,  as  an  argument,  is  in  a  message  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States. 

According  to  that  mode  of  construing  the  Constitution  which 
was  adopted  by  Congress  in  1791,  and  approved  by  Washing- 
ton, and  which  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  judgment  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  arid  affirmed  by  the  practice  of  nearly  forty  years, 
the  question  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank  involves  two 
inquiries.  First,  whether  a  bank,  in  its  general  character,  and 
with  regard  to  the  general  objects  with  which  banks  are  usually 
connected,  be,  in  itself,  a  fit  means,  a  suitable  instrument,  to  carry 
into  effect  the  powers  granted  to  the  government.  If  it  be  so, 
then  the  second,  and  the  only  other  question  is,  whether  the  pow- 
%:rs  given  in  a  particular  charter  are  appropriate  for  a  bank.  If 
they  are  powers  which  are  appropriate  for  a  bank,  powers  which 
Congress  may  fairly  consider  to  be  useful  to  the  bank  or  the 
country,  then  Congress  may  confer  these  powers ;  because  the 
discretion  to  be  exercised  in  framing  the  constitution  of  the  bank 
belongs  to  Congress.  One  man  may  think  the  granted  powers 
not  indispensable  to  the  particular  bank ;  another  may  suppose 
them  injudicious,  or  injurious ;  a  third  may  imagine  that  other 
powers,  if  granted  in  their  stead,  would  be  more  beneficial ;  but 
all  these  are  matters  of  expediency,  about  which  men  may 
differ;  and  the  power  of  deciding  upon  them  belongs  to  Con- 
gress. 

I  again  repeat,  Sir,  that  if,  for  reasons  of  this  kind,  the  Presi- 
dent sees  fit  to  negative  a  bill,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  inex- 
pedient or  impolitic,  he  has  a  right  to  do  so.  But  remember, 
Sir,  that  we  are  now  on  the  constitutional  question;  remember, 
that  the  argument  of  the  President  is,  that,  because  powers  were 
given  to  the  bank  by  the  charter  of  1816  which  he  thinks  un- 
necessary, that  charter  is  unconstitutional.  Now,  Sir,  it  will 
hardly  be  denied,  or  rather  it  was  not  denied  or  doubted  before 
this  message  came  to  us,  that,  if  there  was  to  be  a  bank,  the 
powers  and  duties  of  that  bank  must  be  prescribed  in  the  law 
creating  it.  Nobody  but  Congress,  it  has  been  thought,  could 
37* 


438  THE  PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 

grant  these  powers  and  privileges,  or  prescribe  their  limitations. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  message  pretty  plainly  intimates,  that 
the  President  should  have  been  first  consulted,  and  that  he 
should  have  had  the  framing  of  the  bill ;  but  we  are  not  yet  ac- 
customed to  that  order  of  things  in  enacting  laws,  nor  do  I  know 
a  parallel  to  this  claim,  thus  now  brought  forward,  except  that, 
in  some  peculiar  cases  in  England,  highly  affecting  the  royal  pre- 
rogative, the  assent  of  the  monarch  is  necessary,  before  either 
the  House  of  Peers,  or  his  Majesty's  faithful  Commons,  are 
permitted  to  act  upon  the  subject,  or  to  entertain  its  considera- 
tion. But  supposing,  Sir,  that  our  accustomed  forms  and  oui 
republican  principles  are  still  to  be  followed,  and  that  a  law  cre- 
ating a  bank  is,  like  all  other  laws,  to  originate  with  Congress, 
and  that  the  President  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  till  it  is  pre- 
sented for  his  approval,  then  it  is  clear  that  the  powers  and  du- 
ties of  a  proposed  bank,  and  all  the  terms  and  conditions  annexed 
to  it,  must,  in  the  first  place,  be  settled  by  Congress. 

This  power,  if  constitutional  at  all,  is  only  constitutional  in* 
the  hands  of  Congress.  Anywhere  else,  its  exercise  would  be 
plain  usurpation.  If,  then,  the  authority  to  decide  what  powers 
ought  to  be  granted  to  a  bank  belong  to  Congress,  and  Con- 
gress shall  have  exercised  that  power,  it  would  seem  little  better 
than  absurd  to  say,  that  its  act,  nevertheless,  would  be  uncon- 
stitutional and  invalid,  if,  in  the  opinion  of  a  third  party,  it  had 
misjudged,  on  a  question  of  expediency,  in  the  arrangement  of 
details.  According  to  such  a  mode  of  reasoning,  a  mistake  in 
the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  takes  away  the  jurisdiction.  If  Con- 
gress decide  right,  its  decision  may  stand ;  if  it  decide  wrong, 
its  decision  is  nugatory ;  and  whether  its  decision  be  right  or 
wrong  another  is  to  judge,  although  the  original  power  of  mak- 
ing the  decision  must  be  allowed  to  be  exclusively  in  Congress. 
This  is  the  end  to  which  the  argument  of  the  message  will  con- 
duct its  followers. 

Sir,  in  considering  the  authority  of  Congress  to  invest  the 
bank  with  the  particular  powers  granted  to.  it,  the  inquiry  is  not, 
and  cannot  be,  how  appropriate  these  powers  are,  but  whether 
they  be  at  all  appropriate  ;  whether  they  come  within  the  range 
of  a  just  and  honest  discretion  ;  whether  Congress  may  fairly 
esteem  them  to  be  necessary.  The  question  is  not,  Are  they 
the  fittest  means,  the  best  means?  or  whether  the  bank  might 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  439 

not  be  established  without  them ;  but  the  question  is,  Are 
they  such  as  Congress,  bona  fide,  may  have  regarded  as  ap- 
propriate to  the  end  ?  If  any  other  rule  were  to  be  adopted, 
nothing  could  ever  be  settled.  A  law  would  be  constitutional 
to-day  and  unconstitutional  to-morrow.  Its  constitutionality 
would  altogether  depend  upon  individual  opinion  on  a  mat- 
ter of  mere  expediency.  Indeed,  such  a  case  as  that  is  now 
actually  before  us.  Mr.  Madison  deemed  the  powers  given 
to  the  bank,  in  its  present  charter,  proper  and  necessary.  He 
held  the  bank,  therefore,  to  be  constitutional.  But  the  present 
President,  not  acknowledging  that  the  power  of  deciding  on 
these  points  rests  with  Congress,  nor  with  Congress  and  the 
then  President,  but  setting  up  his  own  opinion  as  the  standard, 
declares  the  law  now  in  being  unconstitutional,  because  the 
powers  granted  by  it  are,  in  his  estimation,  not  necessary  and 
proper.  I  pray  to  be  informed,  Sir,  whether,  upon  similar 
grounds  of  reasoning,  the  President's  own  scheme  for  a  bank,  if 
Congress  should  do  so  unlikely  a  thing  as  to  adopt  it,  would  not 
become  unconstitutional  also,  if  it  should  so  happen  that  his 
successor  should  hold  his  bank  in  as  light  esteem  as  he  holds 
those  established  under  the  auspices  of  Washington  and  Mad- 
ison ? 

If  the  reasoning  of  the  message  be  well  founded,  it  is  clear 
that  the  charter  of  the  existing  bank  is  not  a  law.  The  bank 
has  no  legal  existence ;  it  is  not  responsible  to  government ;  it 
has  no  authority  to  act ;  it  is  incapable  of  being  an  agent ;  thf 
President  may  treat  it  as  a  nullity  to-morrow,  withdraw  from 
it  all  the  public  deposits,  and  set  afloat  all  the  existing  nationa" 
arrangements  of  revenue  and  finance.  It  is  enough  to  state 
these  monstrous  consequences,  to  show  that  the  doctrine,  prin- 
ciples, and  pretensions  of  the  message  are  entirely  inconsistent 
with  a  government  of  laws.  If  that  which  Congress  has  en 
acted,  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  sanctioned,  be  not  the  law  of 
the  land,  then  the  reign  of  law  has  ceased,  and  the  reign  of  in- 
dividual opinion  has  already  begun. 

The  President,  in  his  commentary  on  the  details  of  the  exist- 
ing bank  charter,  undertakes  to  prove  that  one  provision,  and 
another  provision,  is  not  necessary  and  proper ;  because,  as  he 
thinks,  the  same  objects  proposed  to  be  accomplished  by  them 
might  have  been  better  attained  in  another  mode;  and  therefore 


440  THE    PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

such  provisions  are  not  necessary,  and  so  not  warranted  by  the 
Constitution.  Does  not  this  show,  that,  according  to  his  own 
mode  of  reasoning,  his  own  scheme  would  not  be  constitutional, 
since  another  scheme,  which  probably  most  people  would  think 
a  better  one,  might  be  substituted  for  it  ?  Perhaps,  in  any  bank 
charter,  there  may  be  no  provisions  which  may  be  justly  regarded 
as  absolutely  indispensable ;  since  it  is  probable  that  for  any 
of  them  some  others  might  be  substituted.  No  bank,  therefore, 
ever  could  be  established ;  because  there  never  has  been,  and 
never  could  be,  any  charter,  of  which  every  provision  should  ap- 
pear to  be  indispensable,  or  necessary  and  proper,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  every  individual.  To  admit,  therefore,  that  there  may 
be  a  constitutional  bank,  and  yet  to  contend  for  such  a  mode  of 
judging  of  its  provisions  and  details  as  the  message  adopts,  in- 
volves an  absurdity.  Any  charter  which  may  be  framed  may 
be  taken  up,  and  each  power  conferred  by  it  successively  denied, 
on  the  ground,  that,  in  regard  to  each,  either  no  such  power  is 
"  necessary  or  proper  "  in  a  bank,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing  in 
effect,  some  other  power  might  be  substituted  for  it,  and  supply 
its  place.  That  can  never  be  necessary,  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  message  understands  that  term,  which  may  be  dispensed 
with ;  and  it  cannot  be  said  that  any  power  may  not  be  dis- 
pensed with,  if  there  be  some  other  which  might  be  substituted 
for  it,  and  which  would  accomplish  the  same  end.  Therefore, 
no  bank  could  ever  be  constitutional,  because  none  could  be  es- 
tablished which  should  not  contain  some  provisions  which  might 
have  been  omitted,  and  their  place  supplied  by  others. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  understood  the  true  and  well-established 
doctrine  to  be,  that,  after  it  has  been  decided  that  it  is  compe- 
tent for  Congress  to  establish  a  bank,  then  it  follows,  that  it 
may  create  such  a  bank  as  it  judges,  in  its  discretion,  to  be  best, 
and  invest  it  with  all  such  power  as  it  may  deem  fit  and  suita- 
ble ;  with  this  limitation,  always,  that  all  is  to  be  done  in  the 
bondjide  execution  of  the  power  to  create  a  bank.  If  the  grant- 
ed powers  are  appropriate  to  the  professed  end,  so  that  the 
granting  of  them  cannot  be  regarded  as  usurpation  of  authority 
by  Congress,  or  an  evasion  of  constitutional  restrictions,  under 
color  of  establishing  a  bank,  then  the  charter  is  constitutional, 
whether  these  powers  be  thought  indispensable  by  others  or  not, 
or  whether  even  Congress  itself  deemed  them  absolutely  indis 


OF  THE  UNITED  STATES   BANK  BILL.  441 

pensable,  or  only  thought  them  fit  and  suitable,  or  whether 
they  are  more  or  less  appropriate  to  their  end.  It  is  enough 
that  they  are  appropriate ;  it  is  enough  tha(t  they  are  suited  to 
produce  the  effects  designed ;  and  no  comparison  is  to  be  insti- 
tuted, in  order  to  try  their  constitutionality;  between  them  and 
others  which  may  be  suggested.  A  case  analogous  to  the 
present  is  found  in  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  over 
the  mail.  The  Constitution  says  no  more  than  that,  "  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads  " ;  and, 
in  the  general  clause,  "  all  powers  necessary  and  proper  "  to  give 
effect  to  this.  In  the  execution  of  this  power,  Congress  has 
protected  the  mail,  by  providing  that  robbery  of  it  shall  be  pun- 
ished with  death.  Is  this  infliction  of  capital  punishment  con- 
stitutional ?  Certainly  it  is  not,  unless  it  be  both  "  proper  and 
necessary."  The  President  may  not  think  it  necessary  or  prop- 
er ;  the  law,  then,  according  to  the  system  of  reasoning  enforced 
by  the  message,  is  pf  no  binding  force,  and  the  President  may 
disobey  it,  and  refuse  to  see  it  executed. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  President,  that  if  the  general  object,  the 
subject-matter,  properly  belong  to  Congress,  all  its  incidents  be- 
long to  Congress  alsO|  If  Congress  is  to  establish  post-offices 
and  post-roads,  it  may,  for  that  end,  adopt  one  set  of  regulations 
or  another ;  and  either  would  be  constitutional.  So  the  details 
of  one  bank  are  as  constitutional  as  those  of  another,  if  they  are 
confined  fairly  and  honestly  to  the  purpose  of  organizing  the 
institution,  and  rendering  it  useful.  One  bank  is  PS  constitu- 
tional as  another  bank.  If  Congress  possesses  the  power  to 
make  a  bank,  it  possesses  the  power  to  make  it  efficient,  and 
competent  to  produce  the  good  expected  from  it.  It  rray  clothe 
it  with  all  such  power  and  privileges,  not  otherwise  inconsistent 
with  the  Constitution,  as  may  be  necessary,  in  its  or<r>i  judg- 
ment, to  make  it  what  government  deems  it  should  be.  It  may 
confer  on  it  such  immunities  as  may  induce  individuals  to  be- 
come stockholders,  and  to  furnish  the  capital ;  and  since  the  ex- 
tent of  these  immunities  and  privileges  is  matter  of  discretion, 
and  matter  of  opinion,  Congress  only  can  decide  it,  be'ause 
Congress  alone  can  frame  or  grant  the  charter.  A  charter,  thus 
granted  to  individuals,  becomes  a  contract  with  them,  upon  their 
compliance  with  its  terms.  The  bank  becomes  an  agent,  bound 
to  perform  certain  duties,  and  entitled  to  certain  stipulated  rights 


442  THE  PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 

and  privileges,  in  compensation  for  the  proper  discharge  of  these 
duties ;  and  all  these  stipulations,  so  long  as  they  arc  appropri- 
ate to  the  object  professed,  and  not  repugnant  to  any  other  con- 
stitutional injunction,  are  entirely  within  the  competency  of 
Congress  And  yet,  Sir,  the  message  of  the  President  toils 
through  all  the  commonplace  topics  of  monopoly,  the  right  of 
taxation,  the  suffering  of  the  poor,  and  the  arrogance  of  the  rich, 
ivith  as  much  painful  effort,  as  if  one,  or  another,  or  all  of  them, 
had  something  to  do  with  the  constitutional  question. 

What  is  called  the  "monopoly"  is  made  the  subject  of  re- 
peated rehearsal,  in  terms  of  special  complaint.  By  this  "  mo- 
nopoly," I  suppose,  is  understood  the  restriction  contained  in 
the  charter,  that  Congress  shall  not,  during  the  twenty  years, 
create  another  bank.  Now,  Sir,  let  me  ask,  Who  would  think 
of  creating  a  bank,  inviting  stockholders  into  it,  with  large  in- 
vestments, imposing  upon  it  heavy  duties,  as  connected  with 
the  government,  receiving  some  millions  of  dollars  as  a  bonus  or 
premium,  and  yet  retaining  the  power  of  granting,  the  next  day, 
another  charter,  which  would  destroy  the  whole  value  of  the 
first?  If  this  be  an  unconstitutional  restraint  on  Congress,  the 
Constitution  must  be  strangely  at  variance  with  the  dictates 
both  of  good  sense  and  sound  morals.  T)id  not  the  first  Bank 
of  the  United  States  contain  a  similar  restriction?  And  have 
not  the  States  granted  bank  charters  with  a  condition,  that,  if 
the  charter  should  be  accepted,  they  would  not  grant  others? 
States  have  certainly  done  so ;  and,  in  some  instances,  where  no 
bonus  or  premium  was  paid  at  all ;  but  from  the  mere  desire  to 
give  effect  to  the  charter,  by  inducing  individuals  to  accept  it 
and  organize  the  institution.  The  President  declares  that  this 
restriction  is  not  necessary  to  the  efficiency  of  the  bank ;  but 
that  is  the  very  thing  which  Congress  and  his  predecessor  in 
office  were  called  on  to  decide,  and  which  they  did  decide,  when 
the  one  passed  and  the  other  approved  the  act.  And  he  has 
now  no  more  authority  to  pronounce  his  judgment  on  that  act 
than  any  other  individual  in  society.  It  is  not  his  province  to 
decide  on  the  constitutionality  of  statutes  which  Congress  has 
passed,  and  his  predecessors  approved. 

There  is  another  sentiment  in  this  part  of  the  message,  which 
we  should  hardly  have  expected  to  find  in  a  paper  which  is  sup- 
posed, whoever  may  have  drawn  it  up,  to  have  passed  under  the 


OF  THE    UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  443 

review  of  professional  characters.  The  message  declares,  that 
this  limitation  to  create  no  other  bank  is  unconstitutional,  be- 
cause, although  Congress  may  use  the  discretion  vested  in  them, 
"they  may  not  limit  the  discretion  of  their  successors."  This 
reason  is  almost  too  superficial  to  require  an  answer.  Every 
one  at  all  accustomed  to  -the  consideration  of  such  subjects 
knows  that  every  Congress  can  bind  its  successors  to  the  same 
extent  that  it  can  bind  itself.  The  power  of  Congress  13  always 
the  same ;  the  authority  of  law  always  the  same.  It  is  true,  we 
speak  of  the  Twentieth  Congress  and  the  Twenty-first  Congress ; 
but  this  is  only  to  denote  the  period  of  time,  or  to  mark  the  suc- 
cessive organizations  of  the  House  of  Representatives  under  the 
successive  periodical  election  of  its  members.  As  a  politic  body, 
as  the  legislative  power  of  the  government,  Congress  is  always 
continuous,  always  identical.  A  particular  Congress,  as  we 
speak  of  it,  for  instance,  the  present  Congress,  can  no  farther 
restrain  itself  from  doing  what  it  may  choose  to  do  at  the  next 
session,  than  it  can  restrain  any  succeeding  Congress  from  doing 
what  it  may  choose.  Any  Congress  may  repeal  the  act  or  law 
of  its  predecessor,  if  in  its  nature  it  be  repealable,  just  as  it  may 
repeal  its  own  act ;  and  if  a  law  or  an  act  be  irrepealable  in  its 
nature,  it  can  no  more  be  repealed  by  a  subsequent  Congress 
than  by  that  which  passed  it.  All  this  is  familiar  to  every  body. 
And  Congress,  like  every  other  legislature,  often  passes  acts 
which,  being  in  the  nature  of  grants  or  contracts,  are  irrepeala- 
ble ever  afterwards.  The  message,  in  a  strain  of  argument 
which  it  is  difficult  to  treat  with  ordinary  respect,  declares  that 
this  restriction  on  the  power  of  Congress,  as  to  the  establishment 
of  other  banks,  is  a  palpable  attempt  to  amend  the  Constitution 
by  an  act  of  legislation.  The  reason  on  which  this  observation 
purports  to  be  founded  is,  that  Congress,  by  the  Constitution, 
is  to  have  exclusive  legislation  over  the  District  of  Columbia ; 
and  when  the  bank  charter  declares  that  Congress  will  create 
no  new  bank  within  the  District,  it  annuls  this  power  of  exclu- 
sive legislation !  I  must  say^  that  this  reasoning  hardly  rises 
high  enough  to  entitle  it  to  a  passing  notice.  It  would  be  do- 
ing it  too  much  credit  to  call  it  plausible.  No  one  needs  to  be 
informed  that  exclusive  power  of  legislation  is  not  unlimited 
power  of  legislation;  and  if  it  were,  how  can  that  legislative 
power  be  unlimited  that  cannot  restrain  itself,  that  cannot  bind 


444  THE   PRESIDENTIAL   VETO 

itself  by  contract?  Whether  as  a  government  or  as  an  Individ 
ual,  that  being  is  fettered  and  restrained  which  is  not  capable  of 
binding  itself  by  ordinary  obligation.  Every  legislature  binds 
itself,  whenever  it  makes  a  grant,  enters  into  a  contract,  bestows 
an  office,  or  does  any  other  act  or  thing  which  is  in  its  nature 
irrepealable.  And  this,  instead  of  detracting  from  its  legisla- 
tive power,  is  one  of  the  modes  of  exercising  that  power.  The 
legislative  power  of  Congress  over  the  District  of  Columbia 
would  not  be  full  and  complete,  if  it  might  not  make  just  such 
a  stipulation  as  the  bank  charter  contains. 

As  to  the  taxing  power  of  the  States,  about  which  the  mes- 
sage says  so  much,  the  proper  answer  to  all  it  says  is,  that  the 
States  possess  no  power  to  tax  any  instrument  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  It  was  no  part  of  their  power  be- 
fore the  Constitution,  and  they  derive  no  such  power  from  any 
of  its  provisions.  It  is  nowhere  given  to  them.  Could  a  State 
tax  the  coin  of  the  United  States  at  the  mint  ?  Could  a  State 
lay  a  stamp  tax  on  the  process  of  the  courts  of  the  United 
States,  and  on  custom-house  papers  ?  Could  it  tax  the  trans- 
portation of  the  mail,  or  the  ships  of  war,  or  the  ordnance,  or  the 
muniments  of  war,  of  the  United  States?  The  reason  that 
these  cannot  be  taxed  by  a  State  is,  that  they  are  means  and  in- 
struments of  the  government  of  the  United  States.  The  estab- 
lishment of  a  bank  exempt  from  State  taxation  takes  away  no 
existing  right  in  a  State.  It  leaves  it  all  it  ever  possessed.  But 
the  complaint  is,  that  the  bank  charter  does  not  confer  the  power 
of  taxation.  This,  certainly,  though  not  a  new  (for  the  same  ar- 
gument was  urged  here),  appears  to  me  to  be  a  strange  mode  of 
asserting  and  maintaining  State  rights.  The  power  of  taxation 
is  a  sovereign  power ;  and  the  President  and  those  who  think 
with  him  are  of  opinion,  in  a  given  case,  that  this  sovereign 
power  should  be  conferred  on  the  States  by  an  act  of  Congress. 
There  is,  if  I  mistake  not,  Sir,  as  little  compliment  to  State 
sovereignty  in  this  idea,  as  there  is  of  sound  constitutional 
doctrine.  Sovereign  rights  held  under  the  grant  of  an  act 
of  Congress  present  a  proposition  quite  new  in  constitutional 
law. 

The  President  himself  even  admits  that  an  instrument  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States  ought  not,  as  such,  to  be  taxed 
by  the  States;  yet  he  contends  for  such  a  power  of  taxing  prop 


OF  THE  UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  445 

erty  connected  with  this  instrument,  and  essential  to  its  ver} 
being,  as  places  its  whole  existence  in  the  pleasure  of  the  States. 
It  is  not  enough  that  the  States  may  tax  all  the  property  of  all 
their  own  citizens,  wherever  invested  or  however  employed.  The 
complaint  is,  that  the  power  of  State  taxation  does  not  reach  so 
far  as  to  take  cognizance  over  persons  out  of  the  State,  and  to 
tax  them  for  a  franchise  lawfully  exercised  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States.  Sir,  when  did  the  power  of  the  States, 
or  indeed  of  any  government,  go  to  such  an  extent  as  that? 
Clearly  never.  The  taxing  power  of  all  communities  is  neces- 
sarily and  justly  limited  to  the  property  of  its  own  citizens,  and 
to  the  property  of  others,  having  a  distinct  local  existence  as 
property,  within  its  jurisdiction  ;  it  does  not  extend  to  rights  and 
franchises,  rightly  exercised,  under  the  authority  of  other  govern- 
ments, nor  to  persons  beyond  its  jurisdiction.  As  the  Constitu- 
tion has  left  the  taxing  power  of  the  States,  so  the  bank  char- 
ter leaves  it.  Congress  has  not  undertaken  either  to  -take  away, 
or  to  confer,  a  taxing  power ;  nor  to  enlarge,  or  to  restrain  it ;  if 
it  were  to  do  either,  I  hardly  know  which  of  the  two  would  be 
the  least  excusable. 

I  beg  leave  to  repeat,  Mr.  President,  that  what  I  have  now 
been  considering  are  the  President's  objections,  not  to  the  policy 
or  expediency,  but  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank;  and 
not  to.  the  constitutionality  of  any  new  or  proposed  bank,  bu1 
of  the  bank  as  it  now  is,  and  as  it  has  long  existed.  If  the  Pres- 
ident had  declined  to  approve  this  bill  because  he  thought  the 
original  charter  unwisely  granted,  and  the  bank,  in  point  of  poli- 
cy and  expediency,  objectionable  or  mischievous,  and  in  that 
view  only  had  suggested  the  reasons  now  urged  by  him,  his  ar- 
gument, however  inconclusive,  would  have  been  intelligible,  and 
not,  in  its  whole  frame  and  scope,  inconsistent  with  all  well- 
established  first  principles.  His  rejection  of  the  bill,  in  that  case, 
would  have  been,  no  doubt,  an  extraordinary  exercise  of  power ; 
but  it  would  have  been,  nevertheless,  the  exercise  of  a  power 
belonging  to  his  office,  and  trusted  by  the  Constitution  to  his 
discretion.  But  when  he  puts  forth  an  array  of  arguments  such 
as  the  message  employs,  not  against  the  expediency  of  the  bank, 
but  against  its  constitutional  existence,  he  confounds  all  distinc- 
tions, mixes  questions  of  policy  and  questions  of  right  together, 
and  turns  all  constitutional  restraints  into  mere  matters  of  opin- 

VOL.  in.  38 


446  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VETO 

ion.  As  far  as  its  power  extends,  either  in  its  direct  effects  or 
as  a  precedent,  the  message  not  only  unsettles  everything  which 
has  been  settled  under  the  Constitution,  but  would  show,  also, 
that  the  Constitution  itself  is  utterly  incapable  of  any  fixed  con 
struction  or  definite  interpretation,  and  that  there  is  no  possibil- 
ity of  establishing,  by  its  authority,  any  practical  limitations  on 
the  powers  of  the  respective  branches  of  the  government. 

When  the  message  denies,  as  it  does,  the  authority  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  to  decide  on  constitutional  questions,  it  effects,  so 
far  as  the  opinion  of  the  President  and  his  authority  can  effect 
it,  a  complete  change  in  our  government.  It  does  two  things ; 
first,  it  converts  constitutional  limitations  of  power  into  mere 
matters  of  opinion,  and  then  it.  strikes  the  judicial  department, 
as  an  efficient  department,  out  of  our  system.  But  the  message 
by  no  means  stops  even  at  this  point.  Having  denied  to  Con- 
gress the  authority  of  judging  what  powers  may  be  constitution- 
ally conferred  on  a  bank,  and  having  erected  the  judgment  of  the 
President  himself  into  a  standard  by  which  to  try  the  constitu- 
tional character  of  such  powers,  and  having  denounced  the  au- 
thority of  the  Supreme  Court  to  decide  finally  on  constitutional 
questions,  the  message  proceeds  to  claim  for  the  President,  not 
the  power  of  approval,  but  the  primary  power,  the  power  of  orig- 
inating laws.  The  President  informs  Congress,  that  he  would 
have  sent  them  such  a  charter,  if  it  had  been  properly  asked  for, 
as  they  ought  to  confer.  He  very  plainly  intimates,  that,  in  his 
opinion,  the  establishment  of  all  laws,  of  this  nature  at  least, 
belongs  to  the  functions  of  the  executive  government;  and  that 
Congress  ought  to  have  waited  for  the  manifestation  of  the  ex- 
ecutive will,  before  it  presumed  to  touch  the  subject.  Such,  Mr. 
President,  stripped  of  their  disguises,  are  the  real  pretences  set 
up  in  behalf  of  the  executive  power  in  this  most  extraordinary 
paper. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  arrived  at  a  new  epoch.  We  are  en- 
tering on  experiments,  with  the  government  and  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  country,  hitherto  untried,  and  of  fearful  and  appall- 
ing aspect.  This  message  calls  us  to  the  contemplation  of  a 
future  which  little  Resembles  the  past  Its  principles  are  at  war 
with  all  that  public  opinion  has  sustained,  and  all  which  the  ex- 
perience of  the  government  has  sanctioned.  It  denies  first  prin- 
ciples ;  it  contradicts  truths,  heretofore  received  as  indisputable 


OF  THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK   BILL.  44? 

It  denies  to  the  judiciary  the  interpretation  of  law,  and  claims  to 
divide  with  Congress  the  power  of  originating  statutes.  It  ex- 
tends the  grasp  of  executive  pretension  over  every  power  of  the 
government.  But  this  is  not  all.  It  presents  the  chief  magistrate 
of  the  Union  in  the  attitude  of  arguing  away  the  powers  of  that 
government  over  which  he  has  been  chosen  to  preside  ;  and 
adopting  for  this  purpose  modes  of  reasoning  which,  even  under 
the  influence  of  all  proper  feeling  towards  high  official  station,  it 
is  difficult  to  regard  as  respectable.  It  appeals  to  every  preju- 
dice which  may  betray  men  into  a  mistaken  view  of  their  own 
interests,  and  to  every  passion  which  may  lead  them  to  disobey 
the  impulses  of  their  understanding.  It  urges  all  the  specious' 
topics  of  State  rights  and  national  encroachment  against  that 
which  a  great  majority  of  the  States  have  affirmed  to  be  right- 
ful, and  in  which  all  of  them  have  acquiesced.  It  sows,  in  an 
unsparing  manner,  the  seeds  of  jealousy  and  ill-will  against  that 
government  of  which  its  author  is  the  official  head.  It  raises  a 
cry,  that  liberty  is  in  danger,  at  the  very  moment  when  it  puts 
forth  claims  to  powers  heretofore  unknown  and  unheard  of.  It 
affects  alarm  for  the  public  freedom,  when  nothing  endangers 
that  freedom  so  much  as  its  own  unparalleled  pretences.  This, 
even,  is  not  all.  It  manifestly  seeks  to  inflame  the  poor  against 
the  rich ;  it  wantonly  attacks  whole  classes  of  the  people,  for  the 
purpose  of  turning  against  them  the  prejudices  and  the  resent- 
ments of  other  classes.  It  is  a  state  paper  which  finds  no  topic 
too  exciting  for  its  use,  no  passion  too  inflammable  for  its  ad- 
dress and  its  solicitation. 

Such  is  this  message.  It  remains  now  for  the  people  of  the 
United  States  to  choose  between  the  principles  here  avowed  and 
their  government.  These  cannot  subsist  together.  The  one  or 
the  other  must  be  rejected.  If  the  sentiments  of  the  message 
shall  receive  general  approbation,  the  Constitution  will  have  per- 
ished even  earlier  than  the  moment  which  its  enemies  originally 
allowed  for  the  termination  of  its  existence.  It  will  not  have 
survived  to  its  fiftieth  year. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT  BE- 
TWEEN  SOVEREIGN  STATES.* 


On  the  21st  of  January,  1833,  Mr.  Wilkins,  chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  Senate,  introduced  the  bill  further  to  provide  for  the 
collection  of  duties.  On  the  22d  day  of  the  same  month,  Mr.  Calhoun 
submitted  the  following  resolutions  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  these 
United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  constitutional  compact,  to  which 
the  people  of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate  sovereign  community, 
each  binding  itself  by  its  own  particular  ratification  ;  and  that  the  union, 
of  which  the  said  compact  is  the  bond,  is  a  union  between  the  Slates  rat- 
ifying the  same. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  thus  united  by  the 
constitutional  compact,  in  forming  that  instrument,  and  in  creating  a  gen- 
eral government  to  carry  into  effect  the  objects  for  which  they  were 
formed,  delegated  to  that  government,  for  that  purpose,  certain  definite 
powers,  to  be  exercised  jointly,  reserving,  at  the  same  time,  each  State 
to  itself,  the  residuary  mass  of  powers,  to  be  exercised  by  its  own  sep- 
arate government ;  and  that  whenever  the  general  government  assumes 
the  exercise  of  powers  not  delegated  by  the  compact,  its  acts  are  un- 
authorized, and  are  of  no  effect ;  and  that  the  same  government  is  not 
made  the  final  judge  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  since  that  would 
make  its  discretion,  and  not  the  Constitution,  the  measure  of  its  powers; 
but  that,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  sovereign  parties, 
without  any  common  judge,  each  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself, 
as  well  of  the  infraction  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  assertions,  that  the  people  of  these  United  States, 
falion  collectively  as  individuals,  are  now,  or  ever  have  been,  united  on 
the  principle  of  the  social  compact,  and,  as  such,  are  now  formed  into 
one  nation  or  people,  or  that  they  have  ever  been  so  united  in  any  one 

*  A  Speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  16th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1833,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  Speech,  on  the  Bill  "  further  to  provide 
for  the  Collection  of  Duties  on  Imports.'' 


THE   CONSTITUTION   NOT    A    COMPACT.  449 

stage  of  their  political  existence  ;  that  the  people  of  the  several  States 
composing  the  Union  have  not,  as  members  thereof,  retained  their  sover- 
eignty ;  that  the  allegiance  of  their  citizens  has  been  transferred  to  the 
general  government ;  that  they  have  parted  with  the  right  of  punishing 
treason  through  their  respective  State  governments  ;  and  that  they  have 
not  the  right  of  judging  in  the  last  resort  as  to  the  extent  of  the  powers 
reserved,  and  of  consequence  of  those  delegated,  —  are  not  only  without 
foundation  in  truth,  but  are  contrary  to  the  most  certain  and  plain  his- 
torical facts,  and  the  clearest  deductions  of  reason  ;  and  that  all  exercise 
of  power  on  the  part  of  the  general  government,  or  any  of  its  depart- 
ments, claiming  authority  from  such  erroneous  assumptions,  must  of  ne- 
cessity be  unconstitutional,  —  must  tend,  directly  and  inevitably,  to  sub- 
vert the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  to  destroy  the  federal  character  of  the 
Union,  and  to  rear  on  its  ruins  a  consolidated  government,  without  con- 
stitutional check  or  limitation,  and  which  must  necessarily  terminate  in 
the  loss  of  liberty  itself. 

On  Saturday,  the  16th  of  February,  Mr.  Calhoun  spoke  in  opposition 
to  the  bill,  and  in  support  of  these  resolutions.  He  was  followed  by  Mr. 
Webster  in  this  speech. 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  has 
admonished  us  to  be  mindful  of  the  opinions  of  those  who  shall 
come  after  us.  We  must  take  our  chance,  Sir,  as  to  the  light  in 
which  posterity  will  regard  us.  I  do  not  decline  its  judgment, 
nor  withhold  myself  from  its  scrutiny.  Feeling  that  I  am  per- 
forming my  public  duty  with  singleness  of  heart  and  to  the  best 
of  my  ability,  I  fearlessly  trust  myself  to  the  country,  now  and 
hereafter,  and  leave  both  my  motives  and  my  character  to  its 
decision. 

The  gentleman  has  terminated  his  speech  in  a  tone  of  threat 
and  defiance  towards  this  bill,  even  should  it  become  a  law  of 
the  land,  altogether  unusual  in  the  halls  of  Congress.  But  I 
shall  not  suffer  myself  to  be  excited  into  warmth  by  his  denun- 
ciation of  the  measure  which  1  support.  Among  the  feelings 
which  at  this  moment  fill  my  breast,  not  the  least  is  that  of  re- 
gret at  the  position  in  which  the  gentleman  has  placed  himself. 
Sir,  he  does  himself  no  justice.  The  cause  which  he  has  es- 
poused finds  no  basis  in  the  Constitution,  no  succor  from  public 
sympathy,  no  cheering  from  a  patriotic  community.  He  has  no 
foothold  on  which  to  stand  while  he  might  display  the  powers 
of  his  acknowledged  talents.  Every  thing  beneath  his  feet  is 
88* 


4/iO  THE   CONSTITUTION    NOT   A   COMPACT 

hollow  and  treacherous.  He  is  like  a  strong  man  struggling 
in  a  morass :  every  effort  to  extricate  himself  only  sinks  him 
deeper  and  deeper.  And  I  fear  the  resemblance  may  be  carried 
still  farther;  I  fear  that  no  friend  can  safely  come  to  his  relief, 
that  no  one  can  approach  near  enough  to  hold  out  a  helping 
hand,  without  danger  of  going  down  himself,  also,  into  the  bot- 
tomless depths  of  this  Serbonian  bog. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  declared,  that  on  the  decision 
of  the  question  now  in  debate  may  depend  the  cause  of  lib- 
erty itself.  I  am  of  the  same  opinion  ;  but  then,  Sir,  the  liberty 
which  I  think  is  staked  on  the  contest  is  not  political  liberty,  in 
any  general  and  undefined  character,  but  our  own  well-under- 
stood and  long-enjoyed  American  liberty. 

Sir,  I  love  Liberty  no  less  ardently  than  the  gentleman  him- 
self, in  whatever  form  she  may  have  appeared  in  the  progress  of 
human  history.  As  exhibited  in  the  master  states  of  antiquity, 
as  breaking  out  again  from  amidst  the  darkness  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  beaming  on  the  formation  of  new  communities  in 
modern  Europe,  she  has,  always  and  everywhere,  charms  for 
me.  Yet,  Sir,  it  is  our  own  liberty,  guarded  by  constitutions 
and  secured  by  union,  it  is  that  liberty  which  is  our  paternal 
inheritance,  it  is  our  established,  dear-bought,  peculiar  American 
liberty,  to  which  I  am  chiefly  devoted,  and  the  cause  of  which  I 
now  mean,  to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  to  maintain  and  defend. 

Mr.  President,  if  I  considered  the  constitutional  question  now 
before  us  as  doubtful  as  it  is  important,  and  if  I  supposed  that 
its  decision,  either  in  the  Senate  or  by  the  country,  was  likely  to. 
be  in  any  degree  influenced  by  the  manner  in  which  I  might 
now  discuss  it,  this  would  be  to  me  a  moment  of  deep  solici- 
tude. Such  a  moment  has  once  existed.  There  has  been  a 
time,  when,  rising  in  this  place,  on  the  same  question,  I  felt,  I 
must  confess,  that  something  for  good  or  evil  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  country  might  depend  on  an  effort  of  mine.  But  cir- 
cumstances are  changed.  Since  that  day,  Sir,  the  public  opin- 
ion has  become  awakened  to  this  great  question ;  it  has  grasped 
it;  it  has  reasoned  upon  it,  as  becomes  an  intelligent  and  patri- 
otic community,  and  has  settled  it,  or  now  seems  in  the  progress 
of  settling  it,  by  an  authority  which  none  can  disobey,  the  au- 
thority of  the  people  themselves. 

I  shall  not,  Mr.  President,  follow  the  gentleman,  step  by  step, 


BETWEEN    SOVEREIGN    STATES.  451 

through  the  course  of  his  speech.  Much  of  what  he  has  said  he 
has  deemed  necessary  to  the  just  explanation  and  defence  of  his 
own  political  character  and  conduct.  On  this  I  shall  offer  no 
comment.  Much,  too,  has  consisted  of  philosophical  remark 
upon  the  general  nature  of  political  liberty,  and  the  history  of 
free  institutions ;  and  upon  other  topics,  so  general  in  their  na- 
ture as  to  possess,  in  my  opinion,  only  a  remote  bearing  on  the 
immediate  subject  of  this  debate. 

But  the  gentleman's  speech  made  some  days  ago,  upon  intro- 
ducing his  resolutions,  those  resolutions  themselves,  and  parts 
of  the  speech  now  just  concluded,  may,  I  presume,  be  justly  re- 
garded as  containing  the  whole  South  Carolina  doctrine.  That 
doctrine  it  is  my  purpose  now  to  examine,  and  to  compare  it 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  shall  not  consent. 
Sir,  to  make  any  new  constitution,  or  to  establish  another  form 
of  government.  I  will  not  undertake  to  say  what  a  constitu- 
tion for  these  United  States  ought  to  be.  That  question  the 
people  have  decided  for  themselves ;  and  I  shall  take  the  instru- 
ment as  they  have  established  it,  and  shall  endeavor  to  maintain 
it,  in  its  plain  sense  and  meaning,  against  opinions  and  notions 
which,  in  my  judgment,  threaten  its  subversion. 

The  resolutions  introduced  by  the  gentleman  were  apparently 
drawn  up  with  care,  and  brought  forward  upon  deliberation.  I 
shall  not  be  in  danger,  therefore,  of  misunderstanding  him,  or 
those  who  agree  with  him,  if  I  proceed  at  once  to  these  resolu- 
tions, and  consider  them  as  an  authentic  statement  of  those 
opinions  upon  the  great  constitutional  question,  by  which  the 
recent  proceedings  in  South  Carolina  are  attempted  to  be  jus- 
tified. 

These  resolutions  are  three  in  number. 

The  third  seems  intended  to  enumerate,  and  to  deny,  the  sev- 
eral opinions  expressed  in  the  President's  proclamation,  respect- 
ing the  nature  and  powers  of  this  government.  Of  this  third 
resolution,  I  purpose,  at  present,  to  take  no  particular  notice. 

The  first  two  resolutions  of  the  honorable  member  affirm  tjiese 
propositions,  viz. :  — 

1.  That  the  political  system  under  which  we  live,  and  under 
which  Congress  is  now  assembled,  is  a  compact,  to  which  the 
people  of  the  several  States,  as  separate  and  sovereign  commu* 
nities,  are  the  parties. 


452       THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

2.  That  these  sovereign  parties  have  a  right  to  judge,  each  for 
itself,  of  any  alleged  violation  of  the  Constitution  by  Congress ; 
and,  in  case  of  such  violation,  to  choose,  each  for  itself,  its  own 
mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

It  is  true,  Sir,  that  the  honorable  member  calls  this  a  "  constitu- 
tional "  compact;  but  still  he  affirms  it  to  be  a  compact  between 
sovereign  States.  What  precise  meaning,  then,  does  he  attach 
to  the  term  constitutional?  When  applied  to  compacts  between 
sovereign  States,  the  term  constitutional  affixes  to  the  word 
compact  no  definite  idea.  Were  we  to  hear  of  a  constitutional 
league  or  treaty  between  England  and  France,  or  a  constitu- 
tional cenvention  between  Austria  and  Russia,  we  should  not 
understand  what  could  be  intended  by  such  a  league,  such  a 
treaty,  or  such  a  convention.  In  these  connections,  the  word  is 
void  of  all  meaning ;  and  yet,  Sir,  it  is  easy,  quite  easy,  to  see 
why  the  honorable  gentleman  has  used  it  in  these  resolutions. 
He  cannot  open  the  book,  and  look  upon  our  written  frame  of 
government,  without  seeing  that  it  is  called  a  constitution.  This 
may  well  be  appalling  to  him.  It  threatens  his  whole  doctrine 
of  compact,  and  its  darling  derivatives,  nullification  and  seces- 
sion, with  instant  confutation.  Because,  if  he  admits  our  instru- 
ment of  government  to  be  a  constitution,  then,  for  that  very 
reason,  it  is  not  a  compact  between  sovereigns ;  a  constitution 
of  government  and  a  compact  between  sovereign  powers  being 
things  essentially  unlike  in  their  very  natures,  and  incapable  of 
ever  being  the  same.  Yet  the  word  constitution  is  on  the  very 
front  of  the  instrument.  He  cannot  overlook  it.  He  seeks, 
therefore,  to  compromise  the  matter,  and  to  sink  all  the  substan- 
tial sense  of  the  word,  while  he  retains  a  resemblance  of  its 
sound.  He  introduces  a  new  word  of  his  own,  viz.  compact,  as 
importing  the  principal  idea,  and  designed  to  play  the  principal 
part,  and  degrades  constitution  into  an  insignificant,  idle  epithet, 
attached  to  compact.  The  whole  then  stands  as  a  "  constitu- 
tional compact"  !  And  in  this  way  he  hopes  to  pass  off  a  plau- 
sible gloss,  as  satisfying  the  words  of  the  instrument.  But  he 
will  find  himself  disappointed.  Sir,  I  must  say  to  the  honorable 
gentleman,  that,  in  our  American  political  grammar,  CONSTITU- 
TION is  a  noun  substantive ;  it  imports  a  distinct  and  clear  idea 
of  itself;  and  it  is  not  to  lose  its  importance  and  dignity,  it  is 
not  to  be  turned  into  a  poor,  ambiguous,  senseless,  unmeaning 


BETWEEN    SOVEREIGN   STATES.  453 

adjective,  foi  the  purpose  of  accommodating  any  new  set  of  po 
litical  notions.  Sir,  we  reject  his  new  rules  of  syntax  altogether. 
We  will  not  give  up  our  forms  of  political  speech  to  the  gram- 
marians of  the  school  of  nullification.  By  the  Constitution,  we 
mean,  not  a  "constitutional  compact,"  but,  simply  and  directly, 
the  Constitution,  the  fundamental  law ;  and  if  there  be  one  word 
in  the  language  which  the  people  of  the  United  States  under- 
stand, this  is  that  word.  We  know  no  more  of  a  constitutional 
compact  between  sovereign  powers,  than  we  know  of  a  constitU' 
tional  indenture  of  copartnership,  a  constitutional  deed  of  con- 
veyance, or  a  constitutional  bill  of  exchange.  But  we  know 
what  the  Constitution  is ;  we  know  what  the  plainly  written, 
fundamental  law  is ;  we  know  what  the  bond  of  our  Union  and 
the  security  of  our  liberties  is ;  and  we  mean  to  maintain  and  to 
defend  it,  in  its  plain  sense  and  unsophisticated  meaning. 

The  sense  of  the  gentleman's  proposition,  therefore,  is  not  at 
all  affected,  one  way  or  the  other,  by  the  use  of  this  word.  That 
proposition  still  is,  that  our  system  of  government  is  but  a  com- 
pact between  the  people  of  separate  and  sovereign  States. 

Was  it  Mirabeau,  Mr.  President,  or  some  other  master  of  the 
human  passions,  who  has  told  us  that  words  are  things  ?  They 
are  indeed  things,  and  things  of  mighty  influence,  not  only  in 
addresses  to  the  passions  and  high-wrought  feelings  of  mankind, 
but  in  the  discussion  of  legal  and  political  questions  also ;  be- 
cause a  just  conclusion  is  often  avoided,  or  a  false  one  reached, 
by  the  adroit  substitution  of  one  phrase,  or  one  word,  for  an- 
other. Of  this  we  have,  I  think,  another  example  in  the  resolu- 
tions before  us. 

The  first  resolution  declares  that  the  people  of  the  several 
States  "acceded"  to  the  Constitution,  or  to  the  constitutional 
compact,  as  it  is  called.  This  word  "  accede,"  not  found  either 
in  the  Constitution  itself,  or  in  the  ratification  of  it  by  any  one 
of  the  States,  has  been  chosen  for  use  here,  doubtless,  not  with- 
out a  well-considered  purpose. 

The  natural  converse  of  accession  is  secession;  and,  therefore, 
when  it  is  stated  that  the  people  of  the  States  acceded  to  the 
Union,  it  may  be  more  plausibly  argued  that  they  may  secede 
from  it.  If,  in  adopting  the  Constitution,  nothing  was  done  but 
acceding  to  a  compact,  nothing  would  seem  necessary,  in  order 
to  break  it  up,  but  to  secede  from  the  same  compact.  But  the 


454  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT 

term  is  wholly  out  of  place.  Accession,  as  a  word  applied  to 
political  associations,  implies  coming  into  a  league,  treaty,  or 
confederacy,  by  one  hitherto  a  stranger  to  it ;  and  secession  im- 
plies departing  from  such  league  or  confederacy.  The  people 
of  the  United  States  have  used  no  such  form  of  expression  in 
establishing  the  present  government.  They  do  not  say  that  they 
accede  to  a  league,  but  they  declare  that  they  ordain  and  estab- 
lish a  Constitution.  Such  are  the  very  words  of  the  instrument 
itself;  and  in  all  the  States,  without  an  exception,  the  language 
used  by  their  conventions  was,  that  they  "  ratified  the  Constitu- 
tion" ;  some  of  them  employing  the  additional  words  "assented 
to"  and  "  adopted,"  but  all  of  them  "ratifying." 

There  is  more  importance  than  may,  at  first  sight,  appear,  in 
the  introduction  of  this  new  word  by  the  honorable  mover  of 
these  resolutions.  Its  adoption  and  use  are  indispensable  to 
maintain  those  premises,  from  which  his  main  conclusion  is 
to  be  afterwards  drawn.  But  before  showing  that,  allow  me  to 
remark,  that  this  phraseology  tends  to  keep  out  of  sight  the  just 
view  of  a  previous  political  history,  as  well  as  to  suggest  wrong 
ideas  as  to  what  was  actually  done  when  the  present  Constitu- 
tion was  agreed  to.  In  1789,  and  before  this  Constitution  was 
adopted,  the  United  States  had  already  been  in  a  union,  more 
or  less  close,  for  fifteen  years.  At  least  as  far  back  as  the  meet- 
ing of  the  first  Congress,  in  1774,  they  had  been  in  some  meas- 
ure, and  for  some  national  purposes,  united  together.  Before  the 
Confederation  of  1781,  they  had  declared  independence  jointly, 
and  had  carried  on  the  war  jointly,  both  by  sea  and  land  ;  and 
this  not  as  separate  States,  but  as  one  people.  When,  there- 
fore, they  formed  that  Confederation,  and  adopted  its  articles 
.as  articles  of  perpetual  union,  they  did  not  come  together  for 
the  first  time ;  and  therefore  they  did  not  speak  of  the  States 
as  acceding  to  the  Confederation,  although  it  was  a  league, 
and  nothing  but  a  league,  and  rested  on  nothing  but  plighted 
faith  for  its  performance.  Yet,  even  then,  the  States  were  not 
strangers  to  each  other;  there  was  a  bond  of  union  already  sub- 
sisting between  them ;  they  were  associated,  united  States ;  and 
the  object  of  the  Confederation  was  to  make  a  stronger  and  bet- 
ter bond  of  union.  Their  representatives  deliberated  together 
on  these  proposed  Articles  of  Confederation,  and,  being  author- 
ized by  their  respective  States,  finally  "ratified  and  confirmed'" 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES  455 

them.  Inasmuch  as  they  were  already  in  union,  they  did  not 
speak  of  acceding  to  the  new  Articles  of  Confederation,  but  of 
ratifying-  and  confirming'  them  ;  and  this  language  was  not  used 
inadvertently,  because,  in  the  same  instrument,  accession  is  used 
in  its  proper  sense,  when  applied  to  Canada,  which  was  alto- 
gether a  stranger  to  the  existing  union.  "  Canada,"  says  the 
eleventh  article,  "  acceding  to  this  Confederation,  and  joining  in 
the  measures  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  admitted  into  the 
Union." 

Having  thus  used  the  terms  ratify  and  confirm,  even  in  regard 
to  the  old  Confederation,  it  would  have  been  strange  indeed,  if 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  after  its  formation,  and  when 
they  came  to  establish  the  present  Constitution,  had  spoken  of 
the  States,  or  the  people  of  the  States,  as  acceding  to  this  Con- 
stitution. Such  language  would  have  been  ill-suited  to  the  occa- 
sion. It  would  have  implied  an  existing  separation  or  disunion 
among  the  States,  such  as  never  has  existed  since  1774.  No 
such  language,  therefore,  was  used.  The  language  actually  em- 
ployed is,  adopt,  ratify,  ordain,  establish. 

Therefore,  Sir,  since  any  State,  before  she  can  prove  her 
right  to  dissolve  the  Union,  must  show  her  authority  to  undo 
what  has  been  done,  no  State  is  at  liberty  to  secede,  on  the 
ground  that  she  and  other  States  have  done  nothing  but  accede. 
She  must  show  that  she  has  a  right  to  reverse  what  has  been 
ordained,  to  unsettle  and  overthrow  what  has  been  established, 
to  reject  what  the  people  have  adopted,  and  to  break  up  what 
they  have  ratified;  because  these  are  the  terms  which  express 
the  transactions  which  have  actually  taken  place.  In  other 
words,  she  must  show  her  right  to  make  a  revolution. 

If,  Mr.  President,  in  drawing  these  resolutions,  the  honorable 
member  had  confined  himself  to  the  use  of  constitutional  lan- 
guage, there  would  have  been  a  wide  and  awful  hiatus  between 
his  premises  and  his  conclusion.  Leaving  out  the  two  words  com- 
pact and  accession,  which  are  not  constitutional  modes  of  expres- 
sion, and  stating  the  matter  precisely  as  the  truth  is,  his  first  res- 
olution would  have  affirmed  that  the  people  of  the  several  States 
ratified  this  Constitution,  or  form  of  government.  These  are  the 
very  words  of  South  Carolina  herself,  in  her  act  of  ratifica- 
tion. Let,  then,  his  first  resolution  tell  the  exact  truth;  let  it 
state  the  fact  precisely  as  it  exists ;  let  it  say  that  the  people  of 


456  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

the  several  States  ratified  a  constitution,  or  form  of  government 
and  then,  Sir,  what  will  become  of  his  inference  in  his  second 
resolution,  which  is  in  these  words,  viz.  "  that,  as  in  all  other 
cases  of  compact  among  sovereign  parties,  each  has  an  equal 
right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  the  infraction  as  of  the  mode 
and  measure  of  redress  "  ?  It  is  obvious,  is  it  not,  Sir  ?  that  this 
conclusion  requires  for  its  support  quite  other  premises :  it 
requires  premises  which  speak  of  accession  and  of  compact 
between  sovereign  powers;  and,  without  such  premises,  it  is 
altogether  unmeaning. 

Mr.  President,  if  the  honorable  member  will  truly  state  what 
the  people  did  in  forming  this  Constitution,  and  then  state  what 
they  must  do  if  they  would  now  undo  what  they  then  did,  he 
will  unavoidably  state  a  case  of  revolution.  Let  us  see  if  it  be 
not  so.  He  must  state,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  people  of  the 
several  States  adopted  and  ratified  this  Constitution,  or  form 
of  government ;  and,  in  the  next  place,  he  must  state  that  they 
have  a  right  to  undo  this ;  that  is  to  say,  that  they  have  a  right 
to  discard  the  form  of  government  which  they  have  adopted, 
and  to  break  up  the  Constitution  which  they  have  ratified. 
Now,  Sir,  this  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  saying  that  they 
have  a  right  to  make  a  revolution.  To  reject  an  established 
government,  to  break  up  a  political  constitution,  is  revolu- 
tion. 

I  deny  that  any  man  can  state  accurately  what  was  done  by 
the  people,  in  establishing  the  present  Constitution,  and  then 
state  accurately  what  the  people,  or  any  part  of  them,  must 
now  do  to  get  rid  of  its  obligations,  without  stating  an  unde- 
niable case  of  the  overthrow  of  government.  I  admit,  of  course, 
that  the  people  may,  if  they  choose,  overthrow  the  government. 
But,  then,  that  is  revolution.  The  doctrine  now  contended  for 
is,  that,  by  nullification  or  secession,  the  obligations  and  au- 
thority of  the  government  may  be  set  aside  or  rejected,  without 
revolution.  But  that  is  what  I  deny ;  and  what  I  say  is,  that 
no  man  can  state  the  case  with  historical  accuracy,  and  in  con- 
stitutional language,  without  showing  that  the  honorable  gentle- 
man's right,  as  asserted  in  his  conclusion,  is  a  revolutionary  right 
merely ;  that  it  does  not  and  cannot  exist  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, or  agreeably  to  the  Constitution,  but  can  come  into  exist- 
ence only  when  the  Constitution  is  overthrown.  This  is  the 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES  4,57 

reason,  Sir,  which  makes  it  necessary  to  abandon  the  use  of 
constitutional  language  for  a  new  vocabulary,  and  to  substitute, 
in  the  place  of  plain  historical  facts,  a  series  of  assumptions. 
This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  necessary  to  give  new  names  to 
things,  to  speak  of  the  Constitution,  not  as  a  constitution,  but 
as  a  compact,  and  of  the  ratifications  by  the  people,  not  as 
ratifications,  but  as  acts  of  accession. 

Sir,  I  intend  to  hold  the  gentleman  to  the  written  record.  In 
the  discussion  of  a  constitutional  question,  I  intend  to  impose 
upon  him  the  restraints  of  constitutional  language.  The  people 
have  ordained  a  Constitution ;  can  they  reject  it  without  revo- 
lution ?  They  have  established  a  form  of  government ;  can 
they  overthrow  it  without  revolution  ?  These  are  the  true  ques- 
tions. 

AJlow  me  now,  Mr.  President,  to  inquire  further  into  the  ex- 
tent of  the  propositions  contained  in  the  resolutions,  and  their 
necessary  consequences. 

Where  sovereign  communities  are  parties,  there  is  no  essential 
difference  between  a  compact,  a  confederation,  and  a  league. 
They  all  equally  rest  on  the  plighted  faith  of  the  sovereign 
party.  A  league,  or  confederacy,  is  but  a  subsisting  or  continu- 
ing treaty. 

The  gentleman's  resolutions,  then,  affirm,  in  effect,  that  these 
twenty-four  United  States  are  held  together  only  by  a  subsist- 
ing treaty,  resting  for  its  fulfilment  and  continuance  on  no  inhe- 
rent power  of  its  own,  but  on  the  plighted  faith  of  each  State ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  our  Union  is  but  a  league ;  and,  as  a 
consequence  from  this  proposition,  they  further  affirm  that,  as 
sovereigns  are  subject  to  no  superior  power,  the  States  must 
judge,  each  for  itself,  of  any  alleged  violation  of  the  league; 
and  if  such  violation  be  supposed  to  have  occurred,  each  may 
adopt  any  mode  or  measure  of  redress  which  it  shall  think 
proper. 

Other  consequences  naturally  follow,  too,  from  the  main  prop- 
osition. If  a  league  between  sovereign  powers  have  no  limita- 
tion as  to  the  time  of  its  duration,  and  contain  nothing  making 
it  perpetual,  it  subsists  only  during  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
parties,  although  no  violation  be  complained  of.  If,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  either  party,  it  be  violated,  such  party  may  say  that  he 
will  no  longer  fulfil  its  obligations  on  his  part,  but  will  consider 

VOL.  in.  39 


458  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

the  whole  league  or  compact  at  an  end,  although  it  might  be 
one  of  its  stipulations  that  it  should  be  perpetual.  Upon  this 
principle,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  1798,  declared 
null  and  void  the  treaty  of  alliance  between  the  United  States 
and  France,  though  it  professed  to  be  a  perpetual  alliance. 

If  the  violation  of  the  league  be  accompanied  with  serious 
injuries,  the  suffering  party,  being  sole  judge  of  his  own  mode 
and  measure  of  redress,  has  a  right  to  indemnify  himself  by 
reprisals  on  the  offending  members  of  the  league ;  and  reprisals, 
if  the  circumstances  of  the  case  require  -it,  may  be  followed  by 
direct,  avowed,  and  public  war. 

The  necessary  import  of  the  resolution,  therefore,  is,  that  the 
United  States  are  connected  only  by  a  league ;  that  it  is  in  the 
good  pleasure  of  every  State  to  decide  how  long  she  will  choose 
to  remain  a  member  of  this  league ;  that  any  State  may  tU^ter- 
mine  the  extent  of  her  own  obligations  under  it,  and  accept  or 
reject  what  shall  be  decided  by  the  whole ;  that  she  may  also 
determine  whether  her  rights  have  been  violated,  what  is  the 
extent  of  the  injury  done  her,  and  what  mode  and  measure  of 
redress  her  wrongs  may  make  it  fit  and  expedient  for  her  to 
adopt.  The  result  of  the  whole  is.  that  any  State  may  secede 
at  pleasure ;  that  any  State  may  resist  a  law  which  she  herself 
may  choose  to  say  exceeds  the  power  of  Congress ;  and  that,  as 
a  sovereign  power,  she  may  redress  her  own  grievances,  by  her 
own  arm,  at  her  own  discretion.  She  may  make  reprisals ;  she 
may  cruise  against  the  property  of  other  members  of  the  league ; 
she  may  authorize  captures,  and  make  open  war. 

If,  Sir,  this  be  our  political  condition,  it  is  time  the  people  of 
the  United  States  understood  it.  Let  us  look  for  a  moment  to 
the  practical  consequences  of  these  opinions.  One  State,  hold- 
ing an  embargo  law  unconstitutional,  may  declare  her  opinion, 
and  withdraw  from  the  Union.  She  secedes.  Another,  form- 
ing and  expressing  the  same  judgment  on  a  law  laying  duties 
on  imports,  may  withdraw  also.  She  secedes.  And  as,  in  her 
opinion,  money  has  been  taken  out  of  the  pockets  of  her  citizens 
illegally,  under  pretence  of  this  law,  and  as  she  has  power  to 
redress  their  wrongs,  she  may  demand  satisfaction  ;  and,  if  re- 
fused, she  may  take  it  with  a  strong  hand.  The  gentleman  haa 
himself  pronounced  the  collection  of  duties,  under  existing  laws, 
to  be  nothing  but  robbery.  Robbers,  of  course,  may  be  rightful- 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  459 

ly  dispossessed  of  the  fruits  of  their  flagitious  crimes ;  and 
therefore,  reprisals,  impositions  on  the  commerce  of  other  States, 
foreign  alliances  against  them,  or  open  war,  are  all  modes  of  re- 
dress justly  open  to  the  discretion  and  choice  of  South  Carolina; 
for  she  is  to  judge  of  her  own  rights,  and  to  seek  satisfaction  for 
her  own  wrongs,  in  her  own  way. 

But,  Sir,  a  third  State  is  of  opinion,  not  only  that  these  laws 
of  imposts  are  constitutional,  but  that  it  is  the  absolute  duty  of 
Congress  to  pass  and  to  maintain  such  laws;  and  that,  by  omit- 
ting to  pass  and  maintain  them,  its  constitutional  obligations 
would  be  grossly  disregarded.  She  herself  relinquished  the 
power  of  protection,  she  might  allege,  and  allege  truly,  and  gave 
it  up  to  Congress,  on  the  faith  that  Congress  would  exercise  it. 
If  Congress  now  refuse  to  exercise  it,  Congress  does,  as  she  may 
insist,  break  the  condition  of  the  grant,  and  thus  manifestly  vio- 
late the  Constitution ;  and  for  this  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
she  may  threaten  to  secede  also.  Virginia  may  secede,  and  hold 
the  fortresses  in  the  Chesapeake.  The  Western  States  may 
secede,  and  take  to  their  own  use  the  public  lands.  Louisiana 
may  secede,  if  she  choose,  form  a  foreign  alliance,  and  hold  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  If  one  State  may  secede,  ten  may  do 
so,  twenty  may  do  so,  twenty-three  may  do  so.  Sir,  as  these 
secessions  go  on,  one  after  another,  what  is  to  constitute  the 
United  States  ?  Whose  will  be  the  army  ?  Whose  the  navy  ? 
Who  will  pay  the  debts  ?  Who  fulfil  the  public  treaties  ?  Who 
perform  the  constitutional  guaranties?  Who  govern  this  Dis- 
trict and  the  Territories  ?  Who  retain  the  public  property  ? 

Mr.  President,  every  man  must  see  that  these  are  all  questions 
which  can  arise  only  after  a  revolution.  They  presuppose  the 
breaking  up  of  the  government.  While  the  Constitution  lasts, 
they  are  repressed ;  they  spring  up  to  annoy  and  startle  us  only 
from  its  grave. 

The  Constitution  does  not  provide  for  events  which  must  be 
preceded  by  its  own  destruction.  SECESSION,  therefore,  since  it 
must  bring  these  consequences  with  it,  is  REVOLUTIONARY,  and 
NULLIFICATION  is  equally  REVOLUTIONARY.  What  is  revolution? 
Why,  Sir,  that  is  revolution  which  overturns,  or  controls,  or  suc- 
cessfully resists,  the  existing  public  authority ;  that  which  ar- 
rests the  exercise  of  the  supreme  power;  that  which  introduces 
a  new  paramount  authority  into  the  rule  of  the  State.  Now 


460  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

Sir,  this  is  the  precise  object  of  nullification.  It  attempts  to 
supersede  the  supreme  legislative  authority.  It  arrests  the  arm 
of  the  executive  magistrate.  It  interrupts  the  exercise  of  the 
accustomed  judicial  power.  Under  the  name  of  an  ordinance, 
it  declares  null  and  void,  within  the  State,  all  the  revenue  laws 
of  the  United  States.  Is  not  this  revolutionary  ?  Sir,  so  soon 
as  this  ordinance  shall  be  carried  into  effect,  a  revolution  will 
have  commenced  in  South  Carolina.  She  will  have  thrown  off 
the  authority  to  which  her  citizens  have  heretofore  been  subject. 
She  will  have  declared  her  own  opinions  and  her  own  will  to  be 
above  the  laws  and  above  the  power  of  those  who  are  intrusted 
with  their  administration.  If  she  makes  good  these  declarations, 
she  is  revolutionized.  As  to  her,  it  is  as  distinctly  a  change  of 
the  supreme  power,  as  the  American  Revolution  of  1776.  That 
revolution  did  not  subvert  government  in  all  its  forms.  It  did 
not  subvert  local  laws  and  municipal  administrations.  It  only 
threw  off'  the  dominion  of  a  power  claiming  to  be  superior,  and 
to  have  a  rjght,  in  many  important  respects,  to  exercise  legisla- 
tive authority.  Thinking  this  authority  to  have  been  usurped 
or  abused,  the  American  Colonies,  now  the  United  States,  bade 
it  defiance,  and  freed  themselves  from  it  by  means  of  a  revolu- 
tion. But  that  revolution  left  them  with  their  own  municipal 
laws  still,  and  the  forms  of  local  government.  If  Carolina  now 
shall  effectually  resist  the  laws  of  Congress ;  if  she  shall  be  her 
own  judge,  take  her  remedy  into  her  own  hands,  obey  the  laws 
of  the  Union  when  she  pleases  and  disobey  them  when  she 
pleases,  she  will  relieve  herself  from  a  paramount  power  as  dis- 
tinctly as  the  American  Colonies  did  the  same  thing  in  1776. 
In  other  words,  she  will  achieve,  as  to  herself,  a  revolution. 

But,  Sir,  while  practical  nullification  in  South  Carolina  would 
be,  as  to  herself,  actual  and  distinct  revolution,  its  necessary 
tendency  must  also  be  to  spread  revolution,  and  to  break  up  the 
Constitution,  as  to  all  the  other  States.  It  strikes  a  deadly 
blow  at  the  vital  principle  of  the  whole  Union.  To  allow  State 
resistance  to  the  laws  of  Congress  to  be  rightful  and  proper,  to 
admit  nullification  in  some  States,  and  yet  not  expect  to  see  a 
dismemberment  of  the  entire  government,  appears  to  me  the 
wildest  illusion,  and  the  most  extravagant  folly.  The  gentle- 
man seems  not  conscious  of  the  direction  or  the  rapidity  of  his 
own  course.  The  current  of  his  opinions  sweeps  him  along,  he 


BETWEEN  SOVEREIGN  STATES.  461 

knows  not  whither.  To  begin  with  nullification,  with  the  avowed 
intent,  nevertheless,  not  to  proceed  to  secession,  dismember- 
ment, and  general  revolution,  is  as  if  one  were  to  take  the 
plunge  of  Niagara,  and  cry  out  that  he  would  stop  half  way 
down.  In  the  one  case,  as  in  the  other,  the  rash  adventurer 
must  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  dark  abyss  below,  were  it  not 
that  that  abyss  has  no  discovered  bottom. 

Nullification,  if  successful,  arrests  the  power  of  the  law,  ab- 
solves citizens  from  their  duty,  subverts  the  foundation  both  of 
protection  and  obedience,  dispenses  with  oaths  and  obligations 
of  allegiance,  and  elevates  another  authority  to  supreme  com- 
mand. Is  not  this  revolution  ?  And  it  raises  to  supreme  com- 
mand four-and-twenty  distinct  powers,  each  professing  to  be 
under  a  general  government,  and  yet  each  setting  its  laws  at 
defiance  at  pleasure.  Is  not  this  anarchy,  as  well  as  revolution? 
Sir,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  received  as  a 
whole,  and  for  the  whole  country.  If  it  cannot  stand  altogether, 
it  cannot  stand  in  parts ;  and  if  the  laws  cannot  be  executed 
everywhere,  they  cannot  long  be  executed  anywhere.  The  gen- 
tleman very  well  knows  that  all  duties  and  imposts  must  be  uni- 
form throughout  the  country.  He  knows  that  we  cannot  have 
one  rule  or  one  law  for  South  Carolina,  and  another  for  other 
States.  He  must  see,  therefore,  and  does  see,  and  every  man 
sees,  that  the  only  alternative  is  a  repeal  of  the  laws  throughout 
the  whole  Union,  or  their  execution  in  Carolina  as  well  as 
elsewhere.  And  this  repeal  is  demanded  because  a  single 
State  interposes  her  veto,  and  threatens  resistance !  The  result 
of  the  gentleman's  opinion,  or  rather  the  very  text  of  his  doc- 
trine, is,  that  no  act  of  Congress  can  bind  all  the  States,  the  con- 
stitutionality of  which  is  not  admitted  by  all;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  no  single  State  is  bound,  against  its  own  dissent,  by  a  law 
of  imposts.  This  is  precisely  the  evil  experienced  under  the 
old  Confederation,  and  for  remedy  of  which  this  Constitution 
was  adopted.  The  leading  object  in  establishing  this  govern- 
ment, an  object  forced  on  the  country  by  the  condition  of  Ihe 
times  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  law,  was  to  give  to  Con- 
gress power  to  lay  and  collect  imposts  ivithout  the  consent  of 
particular  States.  The  Revolutionary  debt  remained  unpaid  ;  the 
national  treasury  was  bankrupt ;  the  country  was  destitute  of 
credit ;  Congress  issued  its  requisitions  on  the  States,  and  the 
39* 


462  THE  CONSTITUTION    NOT  A  COMPACT 

States  neglected  them ;  there  was  no  power  of  coercion  but  war; 
Congress  could  not  lay  imposts,  or  other  taxes,  by  its  own 
authority;  the  whole  general  government,  therefore,  was  little 
more  than  a  name.  The  Articles  of  Confederation,  as  to  pur- 
poses of  revenue  and  finance,  were  nearly  a  dead  letter.  The 
country  sought  to  escape  from  this  condition,  at  once  feeble 
and  disgraceful,  by  constituting  a  government  which  should  have 
power,  of  itself,  to  lay  duties  and  taxes,  and  to  pay  the  public 
debt,  and  provide  for  the  general  welfare ;  and  to  lay  these  du- 
ties and  taxes  in  all  the  States,  without  asking  the  consent  of 
the  State  governments.  This  was  the  very  power  on  which  the 
new  Constitution  was  to  depend  for  all  its  ability  to  do  good ; 
and  without  it,  it  can  be  no  government,  now  or  at  any  time. 
Yet,  Sir,  it  is  precisely  against  this  power,  so  absolutely  indis- 
pensable to  the  very  being  of  the  government,  that  South  Car- 
olina directs  her  ordinance.  She  attacks  the  government  in  its 
authority  to  raise  revenue,  the  very  main-spring  of  the  whole  sys- 
tem; and  if  she  succeed,  every  movement  of  that  system  must 
inevitably  cease.  It  is  of  no  avail  that  she  declares  that  she 
does  not  resist  the  law  as  a  revenue  law,  but  as  a  law  for  pro- 
tecting manufactures.  It  is  a  revenue  law;  it  is  the  very  law 
by  force  of  which  the  revenue  is  collected ;  if  it  be  arrested  in 
any  State,  the  revenue  ceases  in  that  State ;  it  is,  in  a  word, 
the  sole  reliance  of  the  government  for  the  means  of  maintain- 
ing itself  and  performing  its  duties. 

Mr.  President,  the  alleged  right  of  a  State  to  decide  constitu- 
tional questions  for  herself  necessarily  leads  to  force,  because 
other  States  must  have  the  same  right,  and  because  different 
States  will  decide  differently ;  and  when  these  questions  arise 
between  States,  if  there  be  no  superior  power,  they  can  be  de- 
cided only  by  the  law  of  force.  On  entering  into  the  Union,  the 
people  of  each  State  gave  up  a  part  of  their  own  power  to  make 
laws  for  themselves,  in  consideration  that,  as  to  common  ob- 
jects, they  should  have  a  part  in  making  laws  for  other  States. 
In  other  words,  the  people  of  all  the  States  agreed  to  create  a 
common  government,  to  be  conducted  by  common  counsels. 
Pennsylvania,  for  example,  yielded  the  right  of  laying  imposts  in 
her  own  ports,  in  consideration  that  the  new  government,  in 
which  she  was  to  have  a  share,  should  possess  the  power  of  lay- 
ing imposts  on  all  the  States.  If  South  Carolina  now  refuses 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN  STATES.  463 

to  submit  to  this  power,  she  breaks  the  condition  on  which  oth- 
er States  entered  into  the  Union.  She  partakes  of  the  common 
counsels,  and  therein  assists  to  bind  others,  while  she  refuses  to 
be  bound  herself.  It  makes  no  difference  in  the  case,  whether 
she  does  all  this  without  reason  or  pretext,  or  whether  she  sets 
up  as  a  reason,  that,  in  her  judgment,  the  acts  complained  of  are 
unconstitutional.  In  the  judgment  of  other  States,  they  are 
not  so.  It  is  nothing  to  them  that  she  offers  some  reason  or 
some  apology  for  her  conduct,  if  it  be  one  which  they  do  not 
admit.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  any  State  will  violate  her 
duty  without  some  plausible  pretext.  That  would  be  too  rash 
a  defiance  of  the  opinion  of  mankind.  But  if  it  be  a  pretext 
which  lies  in  her  own  breast ;  if  it  be  no  more  than  an  opinion 
which  she  says  she  has  formed,  how  can  other  States  be  satis- 
fied with  this  ?  How  can  they  allow  her  to  be  judge  of  her  own 
obligations?  Or,  if  she  may  judge  of  her  obligations,  may 
they  not  judge  of  their  rights  also?  May  not  the  twenty-three 
entertain  an  opinion  as  well  as  the  twenty-fourth?  And  if  it 
be  their  right,  in  their  own  opinion,  as  expressed  in  the  common 
council,  to  enforce  the  law  against  her,  how  is  she  to  say  that 
ner  right  and  her  opinion  are  to  be  every  thing,  and  their  right 
and  their  opinion  nothing? 

Mr.  President,  if  we  are  to  receive  the  Constitution  as  tht 
text,  and  then  to  lay  down  in  its  margin  the  contradictory  com 
mentaries  which  have  been,  and  which  may  be,  made  by  differ 
ent  States,  the  whole  page  would  be  a  polyglot  indeed.  Ii 
would  speak  with  as  many  tongues  as  the  builders  of  Babel, 
and  in  dialects  as  much  confused,  and  mutually  as  unintelligible 
The  very  instance  now  before  us  presents  a  practical  illustration. 
The  law  of  the  last  session  is  declared  unconstitutional  in  South 
Carolina,  and  obedience  to  it  is  refused.  In  other  States,  it  is 
admitted  to  be  strictly  constitutional.  You  walk  over  the  limit 
of  its  authority,  therefore,  when  you  pass  a  State  line.  On  one 
side  it  is  law,  on  the  other  side  a  nullity ;  and  yet  it  is  passed 
by  a  common  government,  having  the  same  authority  in  all  the 
States. 

Such,  Sir,  are  the  inevitable  results  of  this  doctrine.  Begin- 
ning with  the  original  error,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  nothing  but  a  compact  between  sovereign  States; 
asserting,  in  the  next  step,  that  each  State  has  a  right  to  be  its 


464  THE  CONSTITUTION   NOT  A   COMPACT 

own  sole  judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  obligations,  and  conse- 
quently of  the  constitutionality  of  laws  of  Congress;  and,  in 
the  next,  that  it  may  oppose  whatever  it  sees  fit  to  declare  un- 
constitutional, and  that  it  decides  for  itself  on  the  mode  and 
measure  of  redress,  —  the  argument  arrives  at  once  at  the  con- 
clusion, that  what  a  State  dissents  from,  it  may  nullify ;  what  it 
opposes,  it  may  oppose  by  force ;  what  it  decides  for  itself,  it  may 
execute  by  its  own  power ;  and  that,  in  short,  it  is  itself  supreme 
over  the  legislation  of  Congress,  and  supreme  over  the  decisions 
of  the  national  judicature ;  supreme  over  the  constitution  of  the 
country,  supreme  over  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  However 
it  seeks  to  protect  itself  against  these  plain  inferences,  by  saying 
that  an  unconstitutional  law  is  no  law,  and  that  it  only  opposes 
such  laws  as  are  unconstitutional,  yet  this  does  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  vary  the  result;  since  it  insists  on  deciding  this 
question  for  itself;  and,  in  opposition  to  reason  and  argument, 
in  opposition  to  practice  and  experience,  in  opposition  to  the 
judgment  of  others,  having  an  equal  right  to  judge,  it  says, 
only,  "  Such  is  my  opinion,  and  my  opinion  shall  be  my  law, 
and  I  will  support  it  by  my  own  strong  hand.  I  denounce  the 
law;  I  declare  it  unconstitutional;  that  is  enough;  it  shall  not 
be  executed.  Men  in  arms  are  ready  to  resist  its  execution.  An 
attempt  to  enforce  it.  shall  cover  the  land  with  blood.  Else- 
where it  may  be  binding;  but  here  it  is  trampled  under  foot." 

This,  Sir,  is  practical  nullification. 

And  now,  Sir,  against  all  these  theories  and  opinions,  I  main- 
tain, — 

1.  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  league, 
confederacy,   or   compact   between   the   people   of  the   several 
States  in  their  sovereign  capacities ;  but  a  government  proper, 
founded  on  the  adoption  of  the  people,  and  creating  direct  rela- 
tions between  itself  and  individuals. 

2.  That  no  State  authority  has  power  to  dissolve  these  rela- 
tions; that  nothing  can  dissolve  them  but  revolution;  and  that, 
consequently,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  secession  without 
revolution. 

3.  That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  consisting  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and  acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pur- 
suance of  it,  and  treaties;  and  that,  in  cases  not  capable  of 
assuming  the  character  of  a  suit  in  law  or  equity,  Congress 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  465 

must  judge  of,  and  finally  interpret,  this  supreme  law  so  often 
as  it  has  occasion  to  pass  acts  of  legislation ;  and  in  cases  capa- 
ble of  assuming,  and  actually  assuming,  the  character  of  a  suit, 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  the  final  interpreter. 

4.  That  an  attempt  by  a  State  to  abrogate,  annul,  or  nullify 
an  act  of  Congress,  or  to  arrest  its  operation  within  her  limits, 
on  the  ground  that,  in  her  opinion,  such  law  is  unconstitutional, 
is  a  direct  usurpation  on  the  just  powers  of  the  general  govern- 
ment, and  on  the  equal  rights  of  other'States  ;  a  plain  violation 
of  the  Constitution,  and  a  proceeding  essentially  revolutionary 
in  its  character  and  tendency. 

Whether  the  Constitution  be  a  compact  between  States  in 
their  sovereign  capacities,  is  a  question  which  must  be  mainly 
argued  from  what  is  contained  in  the  instrument  itself.  We  all 
agree  that  it  is  an  instrument  which  has  been  in  some  way 
clothed  with  power.  We  all  admit  that  it  speaks  with  author- 
ity. The  first  question  then  is,  What  does  it  say  of  itself? 
What  does  it  purport  to  be  ?  Does  it  style  itself  a  league,  con- 
federacy, or  compact  between  sovereign  States  ?  It  is  to  be 
remembered,  Sir,  that  the  Constitution  began  to  speak  only  after 
its  adoption.  Until  it  was  ratified  by  nine  States,  it  was  but  a 
proposal,  the  mere  draught  of  an  instrument.  It  was  like  a  deed, 
drawn,  but  not  executed.  The  Convention  had  framed  it ;  sent 
it  to  Congress,  then  sitting  under  the  Confederation ;  Congress 
had  transmitted  it  to  the  State  legislatures ;  and  by  these  last  it 
was  laid  before  conventions  of  the  people  in  the  several  States. 
All  this  while  it  was  inoperative  paper.  It  had  received  no 
stamp  of  authority,  no  sanction ;  it  spoke  no  language.  But 
when  ratified  by  the  people  in  their  respective  conventions,  then 
it  had  a  voice,  and  spoke  authentically.  Every  word  in  it  had 
then  received  the  sanction  of  the  popular  will,  and  was  to  be 
received  as  the  expression  of  that  will.  What  the  Constitution 
says  of  itself,  therefore,  is  as  conclusive  as  what  it  says  on  any 
other  point.  Does  it  call  itself  a  "compact"?  Certainly  not 
Tt  uses  the  word  compact  but  once,  and  that  is  when  it  declares 
that  the  States  shall  enter  into  no  compact.  Does  it  call  itself 
a  "  league,"  a  "  confederacy,"  a  "  subsisting  treaty  between  the 
States  "  ?  Certainly  not.  There  is  not  a  particle  of  such  lan- 
guage in  all  its  pages.  But  it  declares  itself  a  CONSTITUTION. 
What  is  a  constitution?  Certa:nly  not  a  league,  compact,  or 


466  THE  CONSTITUTION   NOT  A  COMPACT 

confederacy,  but  a  fundamental  law.  That  fundamental  regu- 
lation which  determines  the  manner  in  which  the  public  au- 
thority is  to  be  executed,  is  what  forms  the  constitution  of  a 
state.  Those  primary  rules  which  concern  the  body  itself,  and 
the  very  being  of  the  political  society,  the  form  of  government, 
and  the  manner  in  which  power  is  to  be  exercised,  —  all,  in  a 
word,  which  form  together  the  constitution  of  a  state,  —  these  are 
the  fundamental  laws.  This,  Sir,  is  the  language  of  the  public 
writers.  But  do  we  need  to  be  informed,  in  this  country,  what 
a  constitution  is  ?  Is  it  not  an  idea  perfectly  familiar,  definite, 
and  well  settled  ?  We  are  at  no  loss  to  understand  what  is 
meant,  by  the  constitution  of  one  of  the  States ;  and  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  speaks  of  itself  as  being  an 
instrument  of  the  same  nature.  It  says,  this  Constitution  shall 
be  the  law  of  the  land,  any  thing  in  any  State  constitution  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding.  And  it  speaks  of  itself,  too,  in 
plain  contradistinction  from  a  confederation ;  for  it  says  that  all 
debts  contracted,  and  all  engagements  entered  into,  by  the  United 
States,  shall  be  as  valid  under  this  Constitution  as  under  the  Con- 
federation. It  does  not  say,  as  valid  under  this  compact,  or  this 
league,  or  this  confederation,  as  under  the  former  confederation, 
but  as  valid  under  this  Constitution. 

This,  then,  Sir,  is  declared  to  be  a  constitution.  A  constitu 
tion  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state ;  and  this  is  expressl] 
declared  to  be  the  supreme  law.  It  is  as  if  the  people  had  said 
"  We  prescribe  this  fundamental  law,"  or  "  this  supremp  law,' 
for  they  do  say  that  they  establish  this  Constitution,  and  that  it 
shall  be  the  supreme  law.  They  say  that  they  ordain  and  es- 
tablish it.  Now,  Sir,  what  is  the  common  application  of  these 
words?  We  do  not  speak  of  ordaining'  leagues  and  compacts. 
If  this  was  intended  to  be  a  compact  or  league,  and  the  States 
to  be  parties  to  it,  why  was  it  not  so  said?  Why  is  there  found 
no  one  expression  in  the  whole  instrument  indicating  such  in- 
tent ?  The  old  Confederation  was  expressly  called  a  league , 
and  into  this  league  it  was  declared  that  the  States,  as  States, 
severally  entered.  Why  was  not  similar  language  used  in  the 
Constitution,  if  a  similar  intention  had  existed?  Why  was  it 
not  said,  "  the  States  enter  into  this  new  league,"  "  the  States 
form  this  new  confederation,"  or  "the  States  agree  to  this 
new  compact"?  Or  why  was  it  not  said,  in  the  language  of 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  467 

the  gentleman's  resolution,  that  the  people  of  the  several  States 
acceded  to  this  compact  in  their  sovereign  capacities  ?  What 
reason  is  there  for  supposing  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion rejected  expressions  appropriate  to  their  own  meaning,  and 
adopted  others  wholly  at  war  with  that  meaning  ? 

Again,  Sir,  the  Constitution  speaks  of  that  political  system 
which  is  established  as  "  the  government  of  the  United  States." 
Is  it  not  doing  strange  violence  to  language  to  call  a  league  or  a 
compact  between  sovereign  powers  a  government  ?  The  gov- 
ernment of  a  state  is  that  organization  in  which  the  political, 
power  resides.  It  is  the  political  being  created  by  the  constitu- 
tion or  fundamental  law.  The  broad  and  clear  difference  be- 
tween a  government  and  a  league  or  compact  is,  that  a  govern- 
ment is  a  body  politic ;  it  has  a  will  of  its  own ;  and  it  possesses 
powers  and  faculties  to  execute  its  own  purposes.  Every  com- 
pact looks  to  some  power  to  enforce  its  stipulations.  Even  in  a 
compact  between  sovereign  communities,  there  always  exists 
this  ultimate  reference  to  a  power  to  insure  its  execution ;  al- 
though, in  such  case,  this  power  is  but  the  force  of  one  party 
against  the  force  of  another ;  that  is  to  say,  the  power  of  war. 
But  a  government  executes  its  decisions  by  its  own  supreme  au- 
thority. Its  use  of  force  in  compelling  obedience  to  its  own  en- 
actments is  not  war.  It  contemplates  no  opposing  party  having 
a  right  of  resistance.  It  rests  on  its  own  power  to  enforce  its 
own  will ;  and  when  it  ceases  to  possess  this  power,  it  is  no 
longer  a  government. 

Mr.  President,  I  concur  so  generally  in  the  very  able  speech 
of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  near  me,*  that  it  is  not  without 
diffidence  and  regret  that  I  venture  to  differ  with  him  on  any 
point.  His  opinions,  Sir,  are  redolent  of  the  doctrines  of  a  very 
distinguished  school,  for  which  I  have  the  highest  regard,  of 
whose  doctrines  I  can  say,  what  I  can  also  say  of  the  gentle- 
man's speech,  that,  while  I  concur  in  the  results,  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  hesitate  about  some  of  the  premises.  I  do  not  agree 
that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  States  in  their  sov- 
ereign capacities.  I  do  not  agree,  that,  in  strictness  of  language, 
it  is  a  compact  at  all.  But  I  do  agree  that  it  is  founded  on 
consent  or  agreement,  or  on  compact,  if  the  gentleman  prefers 

*  Mr.  Rives 


468  THE  CONSTITUTION   NOT  A  COMPACT 

that  word,  and  means  no  more  by  it  than  voluntary  consent  or 
agreement.  The  Constitution,  Sir,  is  not  a  contract,  but  the 
result  of  a  contract ;  meaning  by  contract  no  more  than  assent. 
Founded  on  consent,  it  is  a  government  proper.  Adopted  by 
the  agreement  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  when  adopted, 
it  has  become  a  Constitution.  The  people  have  agreed  to  make 
a  Constitution ;  but  when  made,  that  Constitution  becomes 
what  its  name  imports.  It  is  no  longer  a  mere  agreement. 
Our  laws,  Sir,  have  their  foundation  in  the  agreement  or  con- 
sent of  the  two  houses  of  Congress.  We  say,  habitually,  that 
one  house  proposes  a  bill,  and  the  other  agrees  to  it;  but  the 
result  of  this  agreement  is  not  a  compact,  but  a  law.  The  law, 
the  statute,  is  not  the  agreement,  but  something  created  by  the 
agreement;  and  something  which,  when  created,  has  a  new 
character,  and  acts  by  its  own  authority.  So  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  founded  in  or  on  the  consent  of  the  people, 
may  be  said  to  rest  on  compact  or  consent ;  but  it  is  not  itself 
the  compact,  but  its  result.  When  the  people  agree  to  erect  a 
government,  and  actually  erect  it,  the  thing  is  done,  and  the 
agreement  is  at  an  end.  The  compact  is  executed,  and  the  end 
designed  by  it  attained.  Henceforth,  the  fruit  of  the  agreement 
exists,  but  the  agreement  itself  is  merged  in  its  own  accomplish- 
ment; since  there  can  be  no  longer  a  subsisting  agreement  or 
compact  to  form  a  constitution  or  government,  after  that  con- 
stitution or  government  has  been  actually  formed  and  estab- 
lished. 

It  appears  to  me,  Mr.  President,  that  the  plainest  account  of 
the  establishment  of  this  government  presents  the  most  just  and 
philosophical  view  of  its  foundation.  The  people  of  the  several 
States  had  their  separate  State  governments ;  and  between  the 
States  there  also  existed  a  Confederation.  With  this  condition 
of  things  the  people  were  not  satisfied,  as  the  Confederation  had 
been  found  not  to  fulfil  its  intended  objects.  It  was  proposed, 
therefore,  to  erect  a  new,  common  government,  which  should 
possess  certain  definite  powers,  such  as  regarded  the  prosperity 
of  the  people  of  all  the  States,  and  to  be  formed  upon  tho 
general  model  of  American  constitutions.  This  proposal  was 
assented  to,  and  an  instrument  was  presented  to  the  people  of 
the  several  States  for  their  consideration.  They  approved  it, 
and  agreed  to  adopt  it,  as  a  Constitution.  They  executed  that 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  469 

agreement;  they  adopted  the  Constitution  as  a  Constitution, 
and  henceforth  it  must  stand  as  a  Constitution  until  it  shall  be 
altogether  destroyed.  Now,  Sir,  is  not  this  the  truth  of  the  whole 
matter?  And  is  not  all  that  we  have  heard  of  compact  be- 
tween sovereign  States  the  mere  effect  of  a  theoretical  and  arti- 
ficial mode  of  reasoning  upon  the  subject?  a  mode  of  reason- 
ing which  disregards  plain  facts  for  the  sake  of  hypothesis? 

Mr.  President,  the  nature  of  sovereignty  or  sovereign  power 
has  been  extensively  discussed  by  gentlemen  on  this  occasion, 
as  it  generally  is  when  the  origin  of  our  government  is  debated, 
But  I  confess  myself  not  entirely  satisfied  with  arguments  and 
illustrations  drawn  from  that  topic.  The  sovereignty  of  govern- 
ment is  an  idea  belonging  to  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  No 
such  thing  is  known  in  North  America.  Our  governments  are 
all  limited.  In  Europe,  sovereignty  is  of  feudal  origin,  and  im- 
ports no  more  than  the  state  of  the  sovereign.  It  comprises  his 
rights,  duties,  exemptions,  prerogatives,  and  powers.  But  with 
us,  all  power  is  with  the  people.  They  alone  are  sovereign; 
and  they  erect  what  governments  they  please,  and  confer  on 
them  such  powers  as  they  please.  None  of  these  governments 
is  sovereign,  in  the  European  sense  of  the  word,  all  being  re- 
strained by  written  constitutions.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore, 
that  we  only  perplex  ourselves  when  we  attempt  to  explain  the 
relations  existing  between  the  general  government  and  the  sev- 
eral State  governments,  according  to  those  ideas  of  sovereignty 
which  prevail  under  systems  essentially  different  from  our  own. 

But,  Sir,  to  return  to  the  Constitution  itself;  let  me  inquire 
what  it  relies  upon  for  its  own  continuance  and  support.  I  hear 
it  often  suggested,  that  the  States,  by  refusing  to  appoint  Sena- 
tors and  Electors,  might  bring  this  government  to  an  end.  Per- 
haps that  is  true ;  but  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  State  gov- 
ernments themselves.  Suppose  the  legislature  of  a  State,  hav- 
ing the  power  to  appoint  the  governor  and  the  judges,  should 
omit  that  duty,  would  not  the  State  government  remain  *inor- 
ganized?  No  doubt,  all  elective  governments  may  be  broken 
up  by  a  general  abandonment,  on  the  part  of  those  intrusted 
with  political  powers,  of  their  appropriate  duties.  But  one  pop- 
ular government  has,  in  this  respect,  as  much  security  as  an- 
other. The  maintenance  of  this  Constitution  does  not  depend 
on  the  plighted  faith  of  the  States,  as  States,  to  support  it;  and 

VOL.  in  40 


470  THE   CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT 

this  again  shows  that  it  is  not  a  league.  It  relies  on  indivilual 
duty  and  obligation. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  creates  direct  relations 
between  this  government  and  individuals.  This  government 
may  punish  individuals  for  treason,  and  all  other  crimes  in  the 
code,  when  committed  against  the  United  States.  It  has  power, 
also,  to  tax  individuals,  in  any  mode,  and  to  any  extent ;  and  it 
possesses  the  further  power  of  demanding  from  individuals  mili- 
tary service.  Nothing,  certainly,  can  more  clearly  distinguish  a 
government  from  a  confederation  of  states  than  the  possession 
of  these  powers.  No  closer  relations  can  exist  between  individ- 
uals and  any  government. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  government  owes  high  and  solemn 
duties  to  every  citizen  of  the  country.  It  is  bo.und  to  protect 
him  in  his  most  important  rights  and  interests.  It  makes  war 
for  his  protection,  and  no  other  government  in  the  country  can 
make  war.  It  makes  peace  for  his  protection,  and  no  other 
government  can  make  peace.  It  maintains  armies  and  navies 
for  his  defence  and  security,  and  no  other  government  is  al- 
lowed to  maintain  them.  He  goes  abroad  beneath  its  flag,  and 
carries  over  all  the  earth  a  national  character  imparted  to  him 
by  this  government,  and  which  no  other  government  can  im- 
part. In  whatever  relates  to  war,  to  peace,  to  commerce,  he 
knows  no  other  government.  All  these,  Sir,  are  connections  as 
dear  and  as  sacred  as  can  bind  individuals  to  any  government 
on  earth.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  compact  between  States,  but  a 
government  proper,  operating  directly  upon  individuals,  yielding 
to  them  protection  on  the  one  hand,  and  demanding  from  them 
obedience  on  the  other. 

There  is  no  language  in  the  whole  Constitution  applicable  to 
a  confederation  of  States.  If  the  States  be  parties,  as  States, 
what  are  their  rights,  and  what  their  respective  covenants  and 
stipulations  ?  And  where  are  their  rights,  covenants,  and  stip- 
ulations expressed?  The  States  engage  for  nothing,  they  prom- 
ise nothing.  In  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  they  did  make 
premises;,  and  did  enter  into  engagements,  and  did  plight  the 
faith  of  each  State  for  their  fulfilment ;  but  in  the  Constitution 
there  is  nothing  of  that  kind.  The  reason  is,  that,  in  the  Con- 
stitution, it  is  the  people  who  speak,  and  not  the  States.  The 
people  ordain  the  Constitution,  and  therein  address  themselves 


BETWEEN    SOVEREIGN   STATES.  471 

to  the  States,  and  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  injunction  and  prohibition.  The  Constitution  utters  its 
behests  in  the  name  and  by  authority  of  the  people,  and  it  does 
not  exact  from  States  any  plighted  public  faith  to  maintain  it. 
On  the  contrary,  it  makes  its  own  preservation  depend  on  indi- 
vidual duty  and  individual  obligation.  Sir,  the  States  cannot 
omit  to  appoint  Senators  and  Electors.  It  is  not  a  matter  rest- 
ing in  State  discretion  or  State  pleasure.  The  Constitution  has 
taken  better  care  of  its  own  preservation.  It  lays  its  hand  on 
individual  conscience  and  individual  duty.  It  incapacitates  any 
man  to  sit  in  the  legislature  of  a  State,  who  shall  not  first  have 
taken  his  solemn  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  From  the  obligation  of  this  oath,  no  State  power  can 
discharge  him.  All  the  members  of  all  the  State  legislatures  are 
as  religiously  bound  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  as  they  are  to  support  their  own  State  constitution. 
Nay,  Sir,  they  are  as  solemnly  sworn  to  support  it  as  we  our- 
selves are,  who  are  members  of  Congress. 

No  member  of  a  State  legislature  can  refuse  to  proceed,  at 
the  proper  time,  to  elect  Senators  to  Congress,  or  to  provide  for 
the  choice  of  Electors  of  President  and  Vice-President,  any  more 
than  the  members  of  this  Senate  can  refuse,  when  the  appointed 
day  arrives,  to  meet  the  members  of  the  other  house,  to  count 
the  votes  for  those  officers,  and  ascertain  who  are  chosen.  In 
both  cases,  .the  duty  binds,  and  with  equal  strength,  the  con- 
science of  the  individual  member,  and  it  is  imposed  on  all  by  an 
oath  in  the  same  words.  Let  it  then,  never  be  said,  Sir,  that  it 
is  a  matter  of  discretion  with  the  States  whether  they  will  con- 
tinue the  government,  or  break  it  up  by  refusing  to  appoint  Sen- 
ators and  to  elect  Electors.  They  have  no  discretion  in  the 
matter.  The  members  of  their  legislatures  cannot  avoid  doing 
either,  so  often  as  the  time  arrives,  without  a  direct  violation  of 
their  duty  and  their  oaths  ;  such  a  violation  as  would  break  up 
any  other  government. 

Looking  still  further  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
itself,  in  order  to  learn  its  true  character,  we  find  its  great  ap- 
parent purpose  to  be,  to  unite  the  people  of  all  the  States  under 
one  general  government,  for  certain  definite  objects,  and,  to  the 
extent  of  this  union,  to  restrain  the  separate  authority  of  the 
States.  Congress  only  can  declare  war;  therefore,  when  one 


472  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT 

State  is  at  war  with  a  foreign  nation,  all  must  be  at  war.  The 
President  and  the  Senate  only  can  make  peace ;  when  peace  is 
made  for  one  State,  therefore,  it  must  be  made  for  all. 

Can  any  thing  be  conceived  more  preposterous,  than  that  any 
State  should  have  power  to  nullify  the  proceedings  of  the  gen- 
eral government  respecting  peace  and  war?  When  war  is  de- 
clared by  a  law  of  Congress,  can  a  single  State  nullify  that  law, 
and  remain  at  peace  ?  And  yet  she  may  nullify  that  law  as 
well  as  any  other.  If  the  President  and  Senate  make  peace, 
may  one  State,  nevertheless,  continue  the  war?  And  yet,  if 
she  can  nullify  a  law,  she  may  quite  as  well  nullify  a  treaty. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  President,  and  no  ingenuity  of  argument,  no 
subtilty  of  distinction  can  evade  it,  that,  as  to  certain  purposes, 
the  people  of  the  United  States  are  one  people.  They  are  one 
in  making  war,  and  one  in  making  peace ;  they  are  one  in  regu- 
lating commerce,  and  one  in  laying  duties  of  imposts.  The 
very  end  and  purpose  of  the  Constitution  was,  to  make  them 
one  people  in  these  particulars ;  and  it  has  effectually  accom- 
plished its  object.  All  this  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  Con- 
stitution itself.  I  have  already  said,  Sir,  that  to  obtain  a  power 
of  direct  legislation  over  the  people,  especially  in  regard  to  im- 
posts, was  always  prominent  as  a  reason  for  getting  rid  of  the 
Confederation,  and  forming  a  new  Constitution.  Among  innu- 
merable proofs  of  this,  before  the  assembling  of  the  Convention, 
allow  me  to  refer  only  to  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  old 
Congress,  July,  1785. 

But,  Sir,  let  us  go  to  the  actual  formation  of  the  Constitution ; 
let  us  open  the  journal  of  the  Convention  itself,  and  we  shall 
see  that  the  very  first  resolution  which  the  Convention  adopted, 
was,  "THAT  A  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT  OUGHT  TO  BE  ESTABLISHED, 

CONSISTING  OF  A  SUPREME  LEGISLATURE,  JUDICIARY,  AND  EXECU- 
TIVE." 

This  itself  completely  negatives  all  idea  of  league,  and  com- 
pact, and  confederation.  Terms  could  not  be  chosen  more  fit 
to  express  an  intention  to  establish  a  national  government,  and 
to  banish  for  ever  all  notion  of  a  compact  between  sovereign 
States. 

This  resolution  was  adopted  on  the  30th  of  May,  1787.  Af- 
terwards, the  style  was  altered,  and,  instead  of  being  called 
a  national  government,  it  was  called  the  government  of  th 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  473 

United  States ;  but  the  substance  of  this  resolution  was  re- 
tained, and  was  at  the  head  of  that  list  of  resolutions  which 
was  afterwards  sent  to  the  committee  who  were  to  frame  the 
instrument. 

It  is  true,  there  were  gentlemen  in  the  Convention,  who  were 
for  retaining  the  Confederation,  and  amending  its  Articles;  but 
the  majority  was  against  this,  and  was  for  a  national  government. 
Mr.  Patterson's  propositions,  which  were  for  continuing  the  Ar- 
ticles of  Confederation  with  additional  powers,  were  submitted 
to  the  Convention  on  the  15th  of  June,  and  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole.  The  resolutions  forming  the  basis  of  a 
national  government,  which  had  once  been  agreed  to  in  the 
committee  of  the  whole,  and  reported,  were  recommitted  to  the 
same  committee,  on  the  same  day.  The  Convention,  then,  in 
committee  of  the  whole,  on  the  19th  of  June,  had  both  these 
plans  before  them ;  that  is  to  say,  the  plan  of  a  confederacy,  or 
compact,  between  States,  and  the  plan  of  a  national  govern- 
ment. Both  these  plans  were  considered  and  debated,  and  the 
committee  reported,  "  That  they  do  not  agree  to  the  propositions 
offered  by  the  honorable  Mr.  Patterson,  but  that  they  again  sub- 
mit the  resolutions  formerly  reported."  If,  Sir,  any  historical 
fact  in  the  world  be  plain  and  undeniable,  it  is  that  the  Con- 
vention deliberated  on  the  expediency  of  continuing  the  Con- 
federation, with  some  amendments,  and  rejected  that  scheme, 
and  adopted  the  plan  of  a  national  government,  with  a  legis- 
lature, an  executive,  and  a  judiciary  of  its  own.  They  were 
asked  to  preserve  the  league ;  they  rejected  the  proposition. 
They  were  asked  to  continue  the  existing  compact  between 
States ;  they  rejected  it.  They  rejected  compact,  league,  and 
confederation,  and  set  themselves  about  framing  the  constitution 
of  a  national  government ;  and  they  accomplished  what  they 
undertook. 

If  men  will  open  their  eyes  fairly  to  the  lights  of  history,  it  is 
impossible  to  be  deceived  on  this  point.  The  great  object  was 
to  supersede  the  Confederation,  by  a  regular  government;  be- 
cause, under  the  Confederation,  Congress  had  power  only  to 
make  requisitions  on  States ;  and  if  States  declined  compliance, 
as  they  did,  there  was  no  remedy  but  war  against  such  delin- 
quent States.  It  would  seem,  from  Mr.  Jefferson's  correspond- 
ence, in  1786  and  1787,  that  he  was  of  opinion  that  even  this 
40* 


474  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

remedy  ought  to  be  tried.  "  There  will  be  no  money  in  the 
treasury,"  said  he,  "  till  the  confederacy  shows  its  teeth  " ;  and 
he  suggests  that  a  single  frigate  would  soon  levy,  on  the  com- 
merce of  a  delinquent  State,  the  deficiency  of  its  contribution. 
But  this  would  be  war;  and  it  was  evident  that  a  confederacy 
could  not  long  hold  together,  which  should  be  at  war  with  its 
members.  The  Constitution  was  adopted  to  avoid  this  neces- 
sity. It  was  adopted  that  there  might  be  a  government  which 
should  act  directly  on  individuals,  without  borrowing  aid  from 
the  State  governments.  This  is  clear  as  light  itself  on  the  very 
face  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  and  its  whole  history 
tends  to  the  same  conclusion.  Its  framers  gave  this  very  reason 
for  then:  work  in  the  most  distinct  terms.  Allow  me  to  quote 
but  one  or  two  proofs,  out  of  hundreds.  That  State,  so  small  in 
territory,  but  so  distinguished  for  learning  and  talent,  Connecti- 
cut, had  sent  to  the  general  Convention,  among  other  members, 
Samuel  Johnston  and  Oliver  Ellsworth.  The  Constitution  hav- 
ing been  framed,  it  was  submitted  to  a  convention  of  the  people 
of  Connecticut  for  ratification  on  the  part  of  that  State ;  and 
Mr.  Johnston  and  Mr.  Ellsworth  were  also  members  of  this  con- 
vention. On  the  first  day  of  the  debates,  being  called  on  to  ex- 
plain the  reasons  which  led  the  Convention  at  Philadelphia  to 
recommend  such  a  Constitution,  after  showing  the  insufficiency 
of  the  existing  confederacy,  inasmuch  as  it  applied  to  States,  as 
States,  Mr.  Johnston  proceeded  to  say,  — 

"  The  Convention  saw  this  imperfection  in  attempting  to  legislate  for 
States  in  their  political  capacity,  that  the  coercion  of  law  can  be  exer- 
cised by  nothing  but  a  military  force.  They  have,  therefore,  gone  upon 
entirely  new  ground.  They  have  formed  one  new  nation  out  of  the 
individual  States.  The  Constitution  vests  in  the  general  legislature  a 
wower  to  make  laws  in  matters  of  national  concern;  to  appoint  judges 
to  decide  upon  these  laws;  and  to  appoint  officers  to  cany  them  into 
execution.  This  excludes  the  idea  of  an  armed  force.  The  power 
which  is  to  enforce  these  laws  is  to  be  a  legal  power,  vested  in  proper 
magistrates.  The  force  which  is  to  be  employed  is  the  energy  of  law ; 
and  this  force  is  to  operate  only  upon  individuals  who  fail  in  their  duty 
to  their  country.  This  is  the  peculiar  glory  of  the  Constitution,  that  it 
depends  upon  the  mild  and  equal  energy  of  the  magistracy  for  the  exe- 
cution of  the  laws." 

In  the  further  course  of  the  debate,  Mr.  Ellsworth  said, — 


BETWEEN  SOVEREIGN  STATES.  475 

"In  republics,  it  is  a  fundamental  principle,  that  the  majority  govern, 
and  that  the  minority  comply  with  the  general  voice.  How  contrary, 
then,  to  republican  principles,  how  humiliating,  is  our  present  situation ! 
A  single  State  can  rise  up,  and  put  a  veto  upon  the  most  important 
public  measures.  We  have  seen  this  actually  take  place  ;  a  single 
State  has  controlled  the  general  voice  of  the  Union ;  a  minority,  a  very 
small  minority,  has  governed  us.  So  far  is  this  from  being  consistent 
with  republican  principles,  that  it  is,  in  effect,  the  worst  species  of  mon- 
archy. 

"  Hence  we  see  how  necessary  for  the  Union  is  a  coercive  principle. 
No  man  pretends  the  contrary.  We  all  see  and  feel  this  necessity. 
The  only  question  is,  Shall  it  be  a  coercion  of  law,  or  a  coercion  of 
arms  ?  There  is  no  other  possible  alternative.  Where  will  those  who 
oppose  a  coercion  of  law  come  out  ?  Where  will  they  end  ?  A  neces- 
sary consequence  of  their  principles  is  a  war  of  the  States  one  against 
another.  I  am  for  coercion  by  law  ;  that  coercion  which  acts  only  upon 
delinquent  individuals.  This  Constitution  does  not  attempt  to  coerce 
sovereign  bodies,  States,  in  their  political  capacity.  No  coercion  is 
applicable  to  such  bodies,  but  that  of  an  armed  force.  If  we  should 
attempt  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union  by  sending  an  armed  force 
against  a  delinquent  State,  it  would  involve  the  good  and  bad,  the  inno- 
cent arid  guilty,  in  the  same  calamity.  But  this  legal  coercion  singles 
out  the  guilty  individual,  and  punishes  him  for  breaking  the  laws  of  the 
Union." 

Indeed,  Sir,  if  \ve  look  to  all  contemporary  history,  to  the  num- 
bers of  the  Federalist,  to  the  debates  in  the  conventions,  to  the 
publications  of  friends  and  foes,  they  all  agree,  that  a  change  had 
been  made  from  a  confederacy  of  States  to  a  different  system ; 
they  all  agree,  that  the  Convention  had  formed  a  Constitution 
for  a  national  government.  With  this  result  some  were  satis- 
fied, and  some  were  dissatisfied;  but  all  admitted  that  the  thing 
had  been  done.  In  none  of  these  various  productions  and  pub- 
lications did  any  one  intimate  that  the  new  Constitution  was 
but  another  compact  between  States  in  their  sovereign  capaci- 
ties. I  do  not  find  such  an  opinion  advanced  in  a  single  in- 
stance. Everywhere,  the  people  were  told  that  the  old  Confed- 
eration was  to  be  abandoned,  and  a  new  system  to  be  tried ; 
that  a  proper  government  was  proposed,  to  be  founded  in  the 
name  of  the  people,  and -to  have  a  regular  organization  of  its 
own.  Everywhere,  the  people  were  told  that  it  was  to  be  a  gov- 
ernment with  direct  powers  to  make  laws  over  individuals,  and 


x  476  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

to  lay  taxes  and  imposts  without  the  consent  of  the  States. 
Everywhere,  it  was  understood  to  be  a  popular  Constitution.  It 
came  to  the  people  for  their  adoption,  and  was  to  rest  on  the 
same  deep  foundation  as  the  State  constitutions  themselves.  Its 
most  distinguished  advocates,  who  had  been  themselves  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  declared  that  the  very  object  of  submit- 
ting the  Constitution  to  the  people  was,  to  preclude  the  possi- 
bility of  its  being  regarded  as  a  mere  compact.  "  However  gross 
a  heresy,"  say  the  writers  of  the  Federalist,  "  it  may  be  to  main- 
tain that  a  party  to  a  compact  has  a  right  to  revoke  that  compact, 
the  doctrine  itself  has  had  respectable  advocates.  The  possibil- 
ity of  a  question  of  this  nature  proves  the  necessity  of  laying 
the  foundations  of  our  national  government  deeper  than  in  the 
mere  sanction  of  delegated  authority.  The  fabric  of  American 
empire  ought  to  rest  on  the  solid  basis  of  THE  CONSENT  OF  THE 
PEOPLE." 

Such  is  the  language,  Sir,  addressed  to  the  people,  while  they 
yet  had  the  Constitution  under  consideration.  The  powers  con- 
ferred on  the  new  government  were  perfectly  well  understood  to 
be  conferred,  not  by  any  State,  or  the  people  of  any  State,  but 
by  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Virginia  is  more  explicit, 
perhaps,  in  this  particular,  than  any  other  State.  Her  conven- 
tion, assembled  to  ratify  the  Constitution,  "in  the  name  and 
behalf  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  declare  and  make  known,  that 
the  powers  granted  under  the  Constitution,  being  derived  from 
the  people  of  the  United  Stales,  may  be  resumed  by  them  when- 
ever the  same  shall  be  perverted  to  their  injury  or  oppression." 

Is  this  language  which  describes  the  formation  of  a  compact 
between  States  ?  or  language  describing  the  grant  of  powers  to 
a  new  government,  by  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States  ? 

Among  all  the  other  ratifications,  there  is  not  one  which  speaks 
of  the  Constitution  as  a  compact  between  States.  Those  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  express  the  transaction,  in 
my  opinion,  with  sufficient  accuracy.  They  recognize  the  Di- 
vine goodness  "in  affording  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
an  opportunity  of  entering  into  an  explicit  and  solemn  compact 
with  each  other,  by  assenting  to  and  ratifying  a  new  Constitu- 
tion" You  will  observe,  Sir,  that  it  is  the  PEOPLE,  and  not  the 
States,  who  have  entered  into  this  compact ;  and  it  is  the  PEO- 
PLE of  all  the  United  States  These  conventions,  by  this  forro 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  477 

of  expression,  meant  merely  to  say,  that  the  people  of  the  United 
States  had,  by  the  blessing  of  Providence,  enjoyed  the  oppor- 
tunity of  establishing  a  new  Constitution,  founded  in  the  consent 
of  the  people.  This  consent  of  the  people  has  been  called,  by 
European  writers,  the  social  compact ;  and,  in  conformity  to  this 
common  mode  of  expression,  these  conventions  speak  of  that 
assent,  on  which  the  new  Constitution  was  to  rest,  as  an  ex- 
plicit and  solemn  compact,  not  which  the  States  had  entered 
into  with  each  other,  but  which  the  people  of  the  United  States 
had  entered  into. 

Finally,  Sir,  how  can  any  man  get  over  the  words  of  the 
Constitution  itself?  —  "WE,  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

DO    ORDAIN    AND    ESTABLISH    THIS   CONSTITUTION."       These   WOrds 

must  cease  to  be  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  they  must  be  oblit- 
erated from  the  parchment  on  which  they  are  written,  before 
any  human  ingenuity  or  human  argument  can  remove  the  pop- 
ular basis  on  which  that  Constitution  rests,  and  turn  the  instru- 
ment into  a  mere  compact  between  sovereign  States. 

The  second  proposition,  Sir,  which  I  propose  to  maintain,  is, 
that  no  State  authority  can  dissolve  the  relations  subsisting  be- 
tween the  government  of  the  United  States  and  individuals; 
that  nothing  can  dissolve  these  relations  but  revolution ;  and 
that,  therefore,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  secession  without 
revolution.  All  this  follows,  as  it  seems  to  me,  as  a  just  conse- 
quence, if  it  be  first  proved  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  a  government  proper,  owing  protection  to  individuals, 
and  entitled  to  their  obedience. 

The  people,  Sir,  in  every  State,  live  under  two  governments. 
They  owe  obedience  to  both.  These  governments,  though  dis- 
tinct, are  not  adverse.  Each  has  its  separate  sphere,  and  its 
peculiar  powers  and  duties.  It  is  not  a  contest  between  two 
sovereigns  for  the  same  power,  like  the  wars  of  the  rival  houses 
in  England ;  nor  is  it  a  dispute  between  a  government  de  facto 
and  a  government  de  jure.  It  is  the  case  of  a  division  of  pow- 
ers between  two  governments,  made  by  the  people,  to  whom 
both  are  responsible.  Neither  can  dispense  with  the  duty  which 
individuals  owe  to  the  other;  neither  can  call  itself  master  of 
the  other:  the  people  are  masters  of  both.  This  division  of 
power,  it  is  true,  is  in  a  great  measure  unknown  in  Europe.  It 


478  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

is  the  peculiar  system  of  America ;  and,  though  new  and  singu- 
lar, it  is  not  incomprehensible.  The  State  constitutions  are  es- 
tablished by  the  people  of  the  States.  This  Constitution  is 
established  by  the  people  of  all  the  States.  How,  then,  can  a 
State  secede  ?  How  can  a  State  undo  what  the  whole  people 
have  done  ?  How  can  she  absolve  her  citizens  from  their  obe- 
dience to  the  laws  of  the  United  States?  How  can  she  annul 
their  obligations  and  oaths  ?  How  can  the  members  of  her  legis- 
lature renounce  their  own  oaths  ?  Sir,  secession,  as  a  revolu- 
tionary right,  is  intelligible;  as  a  right  to  be  proclaimed  in  the 
midst  of  civil  commotions,  and  asserted  at  the  head  of  armies,  I 
can  understand  it.  But  as  a  practical  right,  existing  under  the 
Constitution,  and  in  conformity  with  its  provisions,  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  nothing  but  a  plain  absurdity ;  for  it  supposes  resist- 
ance to  government,  under  the  authority  of  government  itself;  it 
supposes  dismemberment,  without  violating  the  principles  of 
union  ;  it  supposes  opposition  to  law,  without  crime ;  it  sup- 
poses the  violation  of  oaths,  without  responsibility ;  it  supposes 
the  total  overthrow  of  government,  without  revolution. 

The  Constitution,  Sir,  regards  itself  as  perpetual  and  immor- 
tal. It  seeks  to  establish  a  union  among  the  people  of  the 
States,  which  shall  last  through  all  time.  Or,  if  the  common 
fate  of  things  human  must  be  expected  at  some  period  to  hap- 
pen to  it,  yet  that  catastrophe  is  not  anticipated. 

The  instrument  contains  ample  provisions  for  its  amendment, 
at  all  times;  none  for  its  abandonment,  at  any  time.  It  de- 
clares that  new  States  may  come  into  the  Union,  but  it  does 
not  declare  that  old  States  may  go  out.  The  Union  is  not  a 
temporary  partnership  of  States.  It  is  the  association  of  the 
people,  under  a  constitution  of  government,  uniting  their  power, 
joining  together  their  highest  interests,  cementing  their  present, 
enjoyments,  and  blending,  in  one  indivisible  mass,  all  their  hopes 
for  the  future.  Whatsoever  is  steadfast  in  just  political  princi- 
ples ;  whatsoever  is  permanent  in  the  structure  of  human  socie- 
ty;  whatsoever  there  is  which  can  derive  an  enduring  character 
from  being  (bunded  on  deep-laid  principles  of  constitutional  lib- 
erty and  on  the  broad  foundations  of  the  public  will,  —  all  these 
unite  to  entitle  this  instrument  to  be  regarded  as  a  permanent 
constitution  of  government. 

In  the  next  place,  Mr.  President,  I  contend  that  there  is  a  su- 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES  479 

preme  law  of  the  land,  consisting  of  the  Constitution,  acts  of 
Congress  passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  the  public  treaties. 
This  will  not  be  denied,  because  such  are  the  very  words  of  the 
Constitution.  But  I  contend,  further,  that  it  rightfully  belongs 
to  Congress,  and  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  to  settle  the 
construction  of  this  supreme  law,  in  doubtful  cases.  This  is 
denied ;  and  here  arises  the  great  practical  question,  Wlio  is  to 
construe  finally  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ?  We  al] 
agree  that  the  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law;  but  who  shall 
interpret  that  law  ?  In  our  system  of  the  division  of  powers  be- 
tween different  governments,  controversies  will  necessarily  some- 
times arise,  respecting  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  each.  Who 
shall  decide  these  controversies  ?  Does  it  rest  with  the  general 
government,  in  all  or  any  of  its  departments,  to  exercise  the 
office  of  final  interpreter?  Or  may  each  of  the  States,  as  well 
as  the  general  government,  claim  this  right  of  ultimate  decision? 
The  practical  result  of  this  whole  debate  turns  on  this  point. 
The  gentleman  contends  that  each  State  may  judge  for  itself 
of  any  alleged  violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  may  finally 
decide  for  itself,  and  may  execute  its  own  decisions  by  its  own 
power.  All  the  recent  proceedings  in  South  Carolina  are  found- 
ed on  this  claim  of  right.  Her  convention  has  pronounced  the 
revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  unconstitutional;  and  this 
decision  she  does  not  allow  any  authority  of  the  United  States 
to  overrule  or  reverse.  Of  course  she  rejects  the  authority  of 
Congress,  because  the  very  object  of  the  ordinance  is  to  reverse 
the  decision  of  Congress ;  and  she  rejects,  too,  the  authority  of 
the  courts  of  the  United  States,  because  she  expressly  prohibits 
all  appeal  to  those  courts.  It  is  in  order  to  sustain  this  asserted 
rignt  of  being  her  own  judge,  that  she  pronounces  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  to  be  but  a  compact,  to  which  she  is  a 
party,  and  a  sovereign  party.  If  this  be  established,  then  the  in- 
ference is  supposed  to  follow,  that,  being  sovereign,  there  is  no 
power  to  control  her  decision ;  and  her  own  judgment  on  her 
own  compact  is,  and  must  be,  conclusive. 

I  have  already  endeavored,  Sir,  to  point  out  the  practical  con- 
sequences of  this  doctrine,  and  to  show  how  utterly  inconsistent 
it  is  with  all  ideas  of  regular  government,  and  how  soon  its 
adoption  would  involve  the  whole  country  in  revolution  and  ab- 
solute anarchy.  I  hope  it  is  easy  now  to  show,  Sir,  that  a  doc 


480  THE   CONSTITUTION    NOT  A   COMPACT 

trine  bringing  such  consequences  with  it  is  not  well  founded 
that  it  has  nothing  to  stand  on  but  theory  and  assumption ;  and 
that  it  is  refuted  by  plain  and  express  constitutional  provisions. 
I  think  the  government  of  the  United  States  does  possess,  in  its 
appropriate  departments,  the  authority  of  final  decision  on  ques- 
tions of  disputed  power.  I  think  it  possesses  this  authority, 
both  by  necessary  implication  and  by  express  grant. 

It  will  not  be  denied,  Sir,  that  this  authority  naturally  belongs 
to  all  governments.  They  all  exercise  it  from  necessity,  and  as 
a  consequence  of  the  exercise  of  other  powers.  The  State  gov- 
ernments themselves  possess  it,  except  in  that  class  of  questions 
which  may  arise  between  them  and  the  general  government,  and 
in  regard  to  which  they  have  surrendered  it,  as  well  by  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  as  by  clear  constitutional  provisions.  In  other 
and  ordinary  cases,  whether  a  particular  law  be  in  conformity 
to  the  constitution  of  the  State  is  a  question  which  the  State 
legislature  or  the  State  judiciary  must  determine.  We  all 
know  that  these  questions  arise  daily  in  the  State  governments, 
and  are  decided  by  those  governments  ;  and  I  know  no  govern- 
ment which  does  not  exercise  a  similar  power. 

Upon  general  principles,  then,  the  government  of  the  United 
States  possesses  this  authority ;  and  this  would  hardly  be  de- 
nied were  it  not  that  there  are  other  governments.  But  since 
there  are  State  governments,  and  since  these,  like  other  govern- 
ments, ordinarily  construe  their  own  powers,  if  the  government 
of  the  United  States  construes  its  own  powers  also,  which  con- 
struction is  to  prevail  in  the  case  of  opposite  constructions? 
And  again,  as  in  the  case  now  actually  before  us,  the  State  gov- 
ernments may  undertake,  not  only  to  construe  their  own  powers, 
but  to  decide  directly  on  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  Congress. 
Congress  has  passed  a  law  as  being  within  its  just  powers; 
South  Carolina  denies  that  this  law  is  within  its  just  powers, 
and  insists  that  she  has  the  right  so  to  decide  this  point,  anu 
that  her  decision  is  final.  How  are  these  questions  to  be  settled  ? 

In  my  opinion,  Sir,  even  if  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  had  made  no  express  provision  for  such  cases,  it  would 
yet  be  difficult  to  maintain,  that,  in  a  Constitution  existing  over 
four-and-twenty  States,  with  equal  authority  over  all,  one  could 
claim  a  right  of  construing  it  for  the  whole.  This  would  seem 
a  manifest  impropriety ;  indeed,  an  absurdity.  If  the  Constitu- 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  481 

tion  is  a  government  existing  over  all  the  States,  though  with 
limited  powers,  it  necessarily  follows  that,  to  the  extent  of  those 
powers,  it  must  be  supreme.  If  it  be  not  superior  to  the  author- 
ity of  a  particular  State,  it  is  not  a  national  government.  But 
as  it  is  a  government,  as  it  has  a  legislative  power  of  its  own, 
and  a  judicial  power  coextensive  with  the  legislative,  the  infer- 
ence is  irresistible  that  this  government,  thus  created  by  the 
whole  and  for  the  whole,  must  have  an  authority  superior  to 
that  of  the  particular  government  of  any  one  part.  Congress  is 
the  legislature  of  all  the  people  of  the  United  States ;  the  judi- 
ciary of  the  general  government  is  the  judiciary  of  all  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  To  hold,  therefore,  that  this  legislature 
and  this  judiciary  are  subordinate  in  authority  to  the  legislature 
and  judiciary  of  a  single  State,  is  doing  violence  to  all  common 
sense,  and  overturning  all  established  principles.  Congress  must 
judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  powers  so  often  as  it  is  called  on 
to  exercise  them,  or  it  cannot  act  at  all ;  and  it  must  also  act 
independent  of  State  control,  or  it  cannot  act  at  all. 

The  right  of  State  interposition  strikes  at  the  very  foundation 
of  the  legislative  power  of  Congress.  It  possesses  no  effective 
legislative  power,  if  such  right  of  State  interposition  exists;  be- 
cause it  can  pass  no  law  not  subject  to  abrogation.  It  cannot 
make  laws  for  the  Union,  if  any  part  of  the  Union  may  pro- 
nounce its  enactments  void  and  of  no  effect.  Its  forms  of  legis- 
lation would  be  an  idle  ceremony,  if,  after  all,  any  one  of  four- 
and-twenty  States  might  bid  defiance  to  its  authority.  Without 
express  provision  in  the  Constitution,  therefore,  Sir,  this  whole 
question  is  necessarily  decided  by  those  provisions  which  create 
a  legislative  power  and  a  judicial  power.  If  these  exist  in  a 
government  intended  for  the  whole,  the  inevitable  consequence 
is,  that  the  laws  of  this  legislative  power  and  the  decisions  of 
this  judicial  power  must  be  binding  on  and  over  the  whole.  No 
man  can  form  the  conception  of  a  government  existing  over 
four-and-twenty  States,  with  a  regular  legislative  and  judicial 
power,  and  of  the  existence  at  the  same  time  of  an  authority, 
residing  elsewhere,  to  resist,  at  pleasure  or  discretion,  the  enact- 
ments and  the  decisions  of  such  a  government.  I  maintain, 
therefore,  Sir,  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  as  an  infer- 
ence wholly  unavoidable,  the  acts  of  Congress  and  the  decisions 
of  the  national  courts  must  be  of  higher  authority  than  State 

VOL.    III.  41 


432  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT 

laws  and  State  decisions.  If  this  be  not  so,  there  is,  there  can 
be,  no  general  government. 

But,  Mr.  President,  the  Constitution  has  not  left  this  cardinal 
point  without  full  and  explicit  provisions.  First,  as  to  the  au- 
thority of  Congress.  Having  enumerated  the  specific  powers 
conferred  on  Congress,  the  Constitution  adds,  as  a  distinct 
and  substantive  clause,  the  following,  viz. :  "  To  make  all  laws 
which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execu- 
tion the  foregoing  powers,  and  ah1  other  powers  vested  by  this 
Constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any 
department  or  officer  thereof."  If  this  means  any  thing,  it 
means  that  Congress  may  judge  of  the  true  extent  and  just  in- 
terpretation of  the  specific  powers  granted  to  it,  and  may  judge 
also  of  what  is  necessary  and  proper  for  executing  those  powers. 
If  Congress  is  to  judge  of  what  is  necessary  for  the  execution  of 
its  powers,  it  must,  of  necessity,  judge  of  the  extent  and  inter- 
pretation of  those  powers. 

And  in  regard,  Sir,  to  the  judiciary,  the  Constitution  is  still 
more  express  and  emphatic.  It  declares  that  the  judicial  power 
shall  extend  to  all  cases  in  law  or  equity  arising  under  the  Con- 
stitution, laws  of  the  United  States,  and  treaties ;  that  there  shall 
be  one  Supreme  Court,  and  that  this  Supreme  Court  shall  have 
appellate  jurisdiction  of  all  these  cases,  subject  to  such  excep- 
tions as  Congress  may  make.  It  is  impossible  to  escape  from 
the  generality  of  these  words.  If  a  case  arises  under  the  Con- 
stitution, that  is,  if  a  case  arises  depending  on  the  construction 
of  the  Constitution,  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States 
extends  to  it.  It  reaches  the  case,  the  question ;  it  attaches  the 
power  of  the  national  judicature  to  the  case  itself,  in  whatever 
court  it  may  arise  or  exist ;  and  in  this  case  the  Supreme  Court 
has  appellate  jurisdiction  over  all  courts  whatever.  No  lan- 
guage could  provide  with  more  effect  and  precision  than  is  here 
done,  for  subjecting  constitutional  questions  to  the  ultimate 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  And,  Sir,  this  is  exactly  what 
the  Convention  found  it  necessary  to  provide  for,  and  intended 
to  provide  for.  It  is,  .too,  exactly  what  the  people  were  univer- 
sally told  was  done  when  they  adopted  the  Constitution.  One 
of  the  first  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Convention  was  in  these 
words,  viz. :  "  That  the  jurisdiction  of  the  national  judiciary  shall 
extend  to  cases  which  respect  the  collection  of  the  national,  reve* 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  483 

nue,  and  questions  which  involve  the  national  peace  and  har- 
mony." Now,  Sir,  this  either  had  no  sensible  meaning  at  all,  or 
else  it  meant  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  national  judiciary  should 
extend  to  these  questions,  wilh  a  paramount  authority.  It  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that  the  Convention  intended  that  the  power 
of  the  national  judiciary  should  extend  to  these  questions,  and 
that  the  power  of  the  judicatures  of  the  States  should  also  extend 
to  them,  with  equal  power  of  final  decision.  This  would  be  to 
defeat  the  whole  object  of  the  provision.  There  were  thirteen 
judicatures  already  in  existence.  The  evil  complained  of,  or  the 
danger  to  be  guarded  against,  was  contradiction  and  repugnance 
in  the  decisions  of  these  judicatures.  If  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution meant  to  create  a  fourteenth,  and  yet  not  to  give  it 
power  to  revise  and  control  the  decisions  of  the  existing  thirteen, 
then  they  only  intended  to  augment  the  existing  evil  and  the 
apprehended  danger  by  increasing  still  further  the  chances  of 
discordant  judgments.  Why,  Sir,  has  it  become  a  settled 
axiom  in  politics  that  every  government  must  have  a  judicial 
power  coextensive  with  its  legislative  power?  Certainly,  there 
is  only  this  reason,  namely,  that  the  laws  may  receive  a  uniform 
interpretation  and  a  uniform  execution.  This  object  cannot  be 
otherwise  attained.  A  statute  is  what  it  is  judicially  interpret- 
ed to  be ;  and  if  it  be  construed  one  way  in  New  Hampshire, 
and  another  way  in  Georgia,  there  is  no  uniform  law.  One  su- 
preme court,  with  appellate  and  final  jurisdiction,  is  the  natural 
and  only  adequate  means,  in  any  government,  to  secure  this  uni- 
formity. The  Convention  saw  all  this  clearly;  and  the  resolu- 
tion which  I  have  quoted,  never  afterwards  rescinded,  passed 
through  various  modifications,  till  it  finally  received  the  form 
which  the  article  now  bears  in  the  Constitution. 

It  is  undeniably  true,  then,  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion intended  to  create  a  national  judicial  power,  which  should 
be  paramount  on  national  subjects.  And  after  the  Constitution 
was  framed,  and  while  the  whole  country  was  engaged  in  dis- 
cussing its  merits,  one  of  its  most  distinguished  advocates,  Mr 
Madison,  told  the  people  that  it  was  true,  that,  in  controversies 
relating  to  the  boundary  between  the  two  jurisdictions,  the  tribu- 
nal, which  is  ultimately  to  decide  is  to  be  established  under  the  gen- 
eral government.  Mr.  Martin,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the 
Convention,  asserted  the  same  thing  to  the  legislature  of  Marv- 


484  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

land,  and  urged  it  as  a  reason  for  rejecting  the  Constitution. 
Mr.  Pinckney,  himself  also  a  leading  member  of  the  Convention, 
declared  it  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina.  Everywhere  it  was 
admitted,  by  friends  and  foes,  that  this  power  was  in  the  Con- 
stitution. By  some  it  was  thought  dangerous,  by  most  it  was 
thought  necessary ;  but  by  all  it  was  agreed  to  be  a  power  actu- 
ally contained  in  the  instrument.  The  Convention  saw  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  some  control  in  the  national  government 
over  State  laws.  Different*  modes  of  establishing  this  control 
were  suggested  and  considered.  At  one  time,  it  was  proposed 
that  the  laws  of  the  States  should,  from  time  to  time,  be  laid 
before  Congress,  and  that  Congress  should  possess  a  negative 
over  them.  But  this  was  thought  inexpedient  and  inadmissible ; 
and  in  its  place,  and  expressly  as  a  substitute  for  it,  the  existing 
provision  was  introduced ;  that  is  to  say,  a  provision  by  which 
the  federal  courts  should  have  authority  to  overrule  such  State 
laws  as  might  be  in  manifest  contravention  of  the  Constitution. 
The  writers  of  the  Federalist,  in  explaining  the  Constitution, 
while  it  was  yet  pending  before  the  people,  and  still  unadopted, 
give  this  account  of  the  matter  in  terms,  and  assign  this  reason 
for  the  article  as  it  now  stands.  By  this  provision  Congress 
escaped  the  necessity  of  any  revision  of  State"  laws,  left  the 
whole  sphere  of  State  legislation  quite  untouched,  and  yet  ob- 
tained a  security  against  any  infringement  of  the  constitutional 
power  of  the  general  government.  Indeed,  Sir,  allow  me  to  ask 
again,  if  the  national  judiciary  was  not  to  exercise  a  power  of 
revision  on  constitutional  questions  over  the  judicatures  of  the 
States,  why  was  any  national  judicature  erected  at  all  ?  Can 
any  man  give  a  sensible  reason  for  having  a  judicial  power  in 
this  government,  unless  it  be  for  the  sake  of  maintaining  a  uni- 
formity of  decision  on  questions  arising  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  Congress,  and  insuring  its  execution  ?  And  does 
not  this  very  idea  of  uniformity  necessarily  imply  that  the  con- 
struction given  by  the  national  courts  is  to  be  the  prevailing 
construction  ?  How  else,  Sir,  is  it  possible  that  uniformity  can 
be  preserved  ? 

Gentlemen  appear  to  me,  Sir,  to  look  at  but  one  side  of  the 
question.  They  regard  only  the  supposed  danger  of  trusting  a 
government  with  the  interpretation  of  its  own  powers.  But 
will  they  view  the  question  in  its  other  aspect  ?  Wil]  they  show 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  485 

us  how  it  is  possible  for  a  government  to  get  along  with  four- 
and-twenty  interpreters  of  its  laws  and  powers?  Gentlemen 
argue,  too,  as  if,  in  these  cases,  the  State  would  be  always 
right,  and  the  general  government  always  wrong.  But  sup- 
pose the  reverse ;  suppose  the  State  wrong  (and,  since  they  dif- 
fer, some  of  them  must  be  wrong) ;  are  the  most  important  and 
essential  operations  of  the  government  to  be  embarrassed  and 
arrested,  because  one  State  holds  the  contrary  opinion  ?  Mr. 
President,  every  argument  which  refers  the  constitutionality  of 
acts  of  Congress  to  State  decision  appeals  from  the  majority  to 
the  minority  ;  it  appeals  from  the  common  interest  to  a  partic- 
ular interest ;  from  the  counsels  of  all  to  the  counsel  of  one ; 
and  endeavors  to  supersede  the  judgment  of  the  whole  by  the 
judgment  of  a  part. 

I  think  it  is  clear,  Sir,  that  the  Constitution,  by  express  pro- 
vision, by  definite  and  unequivocal  words,  as  well  as  by  neces- 
sary implication,  has  constituted  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  the  appellate  tribunal  in  all  cases  of  a  constitu- 
tional nature  which  assume  the  shape  of  a  suit,  in  law  or  equity. 
And  I  think  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  leave  this  part  of  the 
subject  by  reading  the  remarks  made  upon  it  in  the  convention 
of  Connecticut,  by  Mr.  Ellsworth;  a  gentleman,  Sir,  who  has 
left  behind  him,  on  the  records  of  the  government  of  his  country, 
proofs  of  the  clearest  intelligence  and  of  the  deepest  sagacity,  as 
well  as  of  the  utmost  purity  and  integrity  of  character.  "  This 
Constitution,"  says  he,  "  defines  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  the 
general  government.  If  the  general  legislature  should,  at  any 
time,  overleap  their  limits,  the  judicial  department  is  a  constitu- 
tional check.  If  the  United  States  go  beyond  their  powers,  if 
they  make  a  law  which  the  Constitution  does  not  authorize, 
it  is  void  ;  arid  the  judiciary  power,  the  national  judges,  who,  to 
secure  their  impartiality,  are  to  be  made  independent,  will  de- 
clare it  to  be  void.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  States  go  beyond 
their  limits,  if  they  make  a  law  which  is  a  usurpation  upon 
the  general  government,  the  law  is  void;  and  upright,  inde- 
pendent judges  will  declare  it  to  be  so."  Nor  did  this  remain 
merely  matter  of  private  opinion.  In  the  very  first  session 
of  the  first  Congress,  with  all  these  well-known  objects,  both 
of  the  Convention  and  the  people,  full  and  fresh  in  his  mind, 
Mr.  Ellsworth,  as  is  generally  understood,  reported  the  bill  fo/ 
41* 


486  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

the  organization  of  the  judicial  department,  and  in  that  bill 
made  provision  for  the  exercise  of  this  appellate  power  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  in  all  the  proper  cases,  in  whatsoever  court 
arising;  and  this  appellate  power  has  now  been  exercised 
for  more  than  forty  years,  without  interruption,  and  without 
doubt. 

As  to  the  cases,  Sir,  which  do  not  come  before  the  courts, 
those  political  questions  which  terminate  with  the  enactments 
of  Congress,  it  is  of  necessity  that  these  should  be  ultimately 
decided  by  Congress  itself.  Like  other  legislatures,  it  must  be 
trusted  with  this  power.  The  members  of  Congress  are  chosen 
by  the  people,  and  they  are  answerable  to  the  people;  like  other 
public  agents,  they  are  bound  by  oath  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion. These  are  the  securities  that  they  will  not  violate  their 
duty,  nor  transcend  their  powers.  They  are  the  same  securities 
that  prevail  in  other  popular  governments ;  nor  is  it  easy  to  see 
how  grants  of  power  can  be  more  safely  guarded,  without  ren- 
dering them  nugatory.  If  the  case  cannot  come  before  the 
courts,  and  if  Congress  be  not  trusted  with  its  decision,  who 
shall  decide  it  ?  The  gentleman  says,  each  State  is  to  decide  it 
for  herself.  If  so,  then,  as  I  have  already  urged,  what  is  law  in 
one  State  is  not  law  in  another.  Or,  if  the  resistance  of  one 
State  compels  an  entire  repeal  of  the  law,  then  a  minority,  and 
that  a  small  one,  governs  the  whole  country. 

Sir,  those  who  espouse  the  doctrines  of  nullification  reject, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  the  first  great  principle  of  all  republican  lib- 
erty ;  that  is,  that  the  majority  must  govern.  In  matters  of 
common  concern,  the  judgment  of  a  majority  must  stand  as 
the  judgment  of  the  whole.  This  is  a  law  imposed  on  us  by 
the  absolute  necessity  of  the  case ;  and  if  we  do  not  act  upon  it, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  maintaining  any  government  but  des- 
potism. We  hear  loud  and  repeated  denunciations  against 
what  is  called  majority  government.  It  is  declared,  with  much 
warmth,  that  a  majority  government  cannot  be  maintained  in 
the  United  States.  What,  then,  do  gentlemen  wish?  Do  they 
wish  to  establish  a  minority  government?  Do  they  wish  to 
subject  the  will  of  the  many  to  the  will  of  the  few  ?  The  hon- 
orable.  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  has  spoken  of  absolute 
majorities  and  majorities  concurrent ;  language  wholly  unknown 
to  our  Constitution,  and  to  which  it  is  not  easy  to  affix  definite 


BETWEEN    SOVEREIGN   STATES.  437 

ideas.  As  far  as  I  understand  it,  it  would  teach  us  that  the 
absolute  majority  may  be  found  in  Congress,  but  the  majority 
concurrent  must  be  looked  for  in  the  States ;  that  is  to  say,  Sir, 
stripping  the  matter  of  this  novelty  of  phrase,  that  the  dissent 
of  one  or  more  States,  as  States,  renders  void  the  decision  of 
a  majority  of  Congress,  so  far  as  that  State  is  concerned.  And 
so  this  doctrine,  running  but'  a  short  career,  like  other  dogmas 
of  the  day,  terminates  in  nullification. 

If  this  vehement  invective  against  majorities  meant  no  more 
than  that,  in  the  construction  of  government,  it  is  wise  to  pro- 
vide checks,  and  balances,  so  that  there  should  be  various  limi- 
tations on  the  power  of  the  mere  majority,  it  would  only  mean 
what  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  already  abun- 
dantly provided.  It  is  full  of  such  checks  and  balances.  In  its 
very  organization,  it  adopts  a  broad  and  most  effective  principle 
in  restraint  of  the  power  of  mere  majorities.  A  majority  of 
the  people  elects  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  it  does  not 
elect  the  Senate.  The  Senate  is  elected  by  the  States,  each 
State  having,  in  this  respect,  an  equal  power.  No  law,  there- 
fore, can  pass,  without  the  assent  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  and  a  majority  of  the  representatives  of  the  States  also. 
A  majority  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  must  concur, 
and  a  majority  of  the  States  must  concur,  in  every  act  of  Con- 
gres ;  and  the  President  is  elected  on  a  plan  compounded  of  both 
these  principles.  But  having  composed  one  house  of  repre- 
sentatives chosen  by  the  people  in  each  State,  according  to  their 
numbers,  and  the  other  of  an  equal  number  of  members  from  . 
every  State,  whether  larger  or  smaller,  the  Constitution  gives  to 
majorities  in  these  houses  thus  constituted  the  full  and  entire 
power  of  passing  laws,  subject  always  to  the  constitutional  re- 
strictions and  to  the  approval  of  the  President.  To  subject 
them  to  any  other  power  i£  clear  usurpation.  The  majority  of 
one  house  may  be  controlled  by  the  majority  of  the  other ;  and 
both  may  be  restrained  by  the  President's  negative.  These 
are  checks  and  balances  provided  by  the  Constitution,  existing 
in  the  government  itself,  and  wisely  intended  to  secure  delibera- 
tion and  caution  in  legislative  proceedings.  But  to  resist  the 
will  of  the  majority  in  both  houses,  thus  constitutionally  exer- 
cised ;  to  insist  on  the  lawfulness  of  interposition  by  an  extra- 
neous power ;  to  claim  the  right  of  defeating  the  will  cf  Congress, 


488  THE  CONSTITUTION   NOT  A  COMPACT 

by  setting  up  against  it  the  will  of  a  single  State,  —  is  neithe1* 
more  nor  less,  as  it  strikes  me,  than  a  plain  attempt  to  over- 
throw the  government.  The  constituted  authorities  of  the 
United  States  are  no  longer  a  government,  if  they  be  not  mas- 
ters of  their  own  will ;  they  are  no  longer  a  government,  if  an 
external  power  may  arrest  their  proceedings ;  they  are  no  longer 
a  government,  if  acts  passed  by  both  houses,  and  approved 
by  the  President,  may  be  nullified  by  State  vetoes  or  State 
ordinances.  Does  any  one  suppose  it  could  make  any  differ- 
ence, as  to  the  binding  authority  of  an  act  of  Congress,  and 
of  the  duty  of  a  State  to  respect  it,  whether  it  passed  by  a 
mere  majority  of  both  houses,  or  by  three  fourths  of  each, 
or  the  unanimous  vote  of  each?  Within  the  limits  and  re- 
strictions of  the  Constitution,  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  like  all  other  popular  governments,  acts  by  majorities. 
It  can  act  no  otherwise.  Whoever,  therefore,  denounces  the 
government  of  majorities,  denounces  the  government  of  his  own 
country,  and  denounces  all  free  governments.  And  whoever 
would  restrain  these  majorities,  while  acting  within  their  consti- 
tutional limits,  by  an  external  power,  whatever  he  may  intend, 
asserts  principles  which,  if  adopted,  can  lead  to  nothing  else  than 
the  destruction  of  the  government  itself. 

Does  not  the  gentleman  perceive,  Sir,  how  his  argument 
against  majorities  might  here  be  retorted  upon  him  ?  Does  he 
not  see  how  cogently  he  might  be  asked,  whether  it  be  the  char- 
acter of  nullification  to  practise  what  it  preaches?  Look  to 
South  Carolina,  at  the  present  moment.  How  far  are  the  rights 
of  minorities  there  respected  ?  I  confess,  Sir,  I  have  not  known, 
in  peaceable  times,  the  power  of  the  majority  carried  with  a 
higher  hand,  or  upheld  with  more  relentless  disregard  of  the 
rights,  feelings,  and  principles  of  the  minority ;  —  a  minority  em- 
bracing, as  the  gentleman  himself  will  admit,  a  large  portion  of 
the  worth  and  respectability  of  the  State ;  a  minority  compre- 
hending in  its  numbers  men  who  have  been  associated  with 
him,  and  with  us,  in  these  halls  of  legislation ;  men  who  have 
served  their  country  at  home  and  honored  it  abroad ;  men  who 
would  cheerfully  lay  down  their  lives  for  their  native  State,  in 
any  cause  which  they  could  regard  as  the  cause  of  honor  and 
duty ;  men  above  fear,  and  above  reproach ;  whose  deepest  grief 
and  distress  spring  from  the  conviction,  that  the  present  proceed- 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN  S1ATES.  489 

f  "• 

ings  of  the  State  must  ultimately  reflect  discredit  upon  her. 
How  is  this  minority,  how  are  these  men,  regarded  ?  They  are 
enthralled  and  disfranchised  by  ordinances  and  acts  of  legisla- 
tion ;  subjected  to  tests  and  oaths,  incompatible,  as  they  consci- 
entiously think,  with  oaths  already  taken,  and  obligations  already 
assumed ,  they  are  proscribed  an4  denounced,  as  recreants  to 
duty  and  patriotism,  and  slaves  to  a  foreign  power.  Both  the 
spirit  which  pursues  them,  and  the  positive  measures  which 
emanate  from  that  spirit,  are  harsh  and  prescriptive  beyond 
all  precedent  within  my  knowledge,  except  in  periods  of  pro- 
fessed revolution. 

It  is  not,  Sir,  one  would  think,  for  those  who  approve  these 
proceedings  to  complain  of  the  power  of  majorities. 

Mr.  President,  all  popular  governments  rest  on  two  principles, 
or  two  assumptions  :  — 

First,  That  there  is  so  far  a  common  interest  among  those 
over  whom  the  government  extends,  as  that  it  may  provide  for 
the  defence,  protection,  and  good  government  of  the  whole, 
without  injustice  or  oppression  to  parts ;  and 

Secondly,  That  the  representatives  of  the  people,  and  espe- 
cially the  people  themselves,  are  secure  against  general  corrup- 
ion,  and  may  be  trusted,  therefore,  with  the  exercise  of  power. 
Whoever  argues  against  these  principles  argues  against  the 
practicability  of  all  free  governments.  And  whoever  admits 
these,  must  admit,  or  cannot  deny,  that  power  is  as  safe  in  the 
hands  of  Congress  as  in  those  of  other  representative  bodies. 
Congress  is  not  irresponsible.  Its  members  are  agents  of  the 
people,  elected  by  them,  answerable'  to  them,  and  liable  to  be 
displaced  or  superseded,  at  their  pleasure ;  and  they  possess  as 
fair  a  claim  to  the  confidence  of  the  people,  while  they  continue 
to  deserve  it,  as  any  other  public  political  agents. 

If,  then,  Sir,  the  manifest  intention  of  the  Convention,  and 
the  contemporary  admission  of  both  friends  and  foes,  prove  any 
thing ;  if  the  plain  text  of  the  instrument  itself,  as  well  as  the 
necessary  implication  from  other  provisions,  prove  any  thing ; 
if  the  early  legislation  of  Congress,  the  course  of  judicial  de- 
cisions, acquiesced  in  by  all  the  States  for  forty  years,  prove 
any  thing,  —  then  it  is  proved  that  there  is  a  supreme  law,  and 
a  final  interpreter. 

My  fourth  and  last  proposition,  Mr.  President,  was,  that  any 


490  THE   CONSTITUTION   NOT  A  COMPACT 

attempt  by  a  State  to  abrogate  or  nullify  acts  of  Congress  ia 
a  usurpation  on  the  powers  of  the  general  government  and  on 
the  equal  rights  of  other  States,  a  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
and  a  proceeding  essentially  revolutionary.  This  is  undoubt- 
edly true,  if  the  preceding  propositions  be  regarded  as  proved. 
If  the  government  of  the  United  States  be  trusted  with  the  duty, 
in  any  department,  of  declaring  the  extent  of  its  own  powers, 
then  a  State  ordinance,  or  act  of  legislation,  authorizing  resist- 
ance to  an  act  of  Congress,  on  the  alleged  ground  of  its  uncon- 
stitutionality,  is  manifestly  a  usurpation  upon  its  powers.  If 
the  States  have  equal  rights  in  matters  concerning  the  whole, 
then  for  one  State  to  set  up  her  judgment  against  the  judgment 
of  the  rest,  and  to  insist  on  executing  that  judgment  by  force, 
is  also  a  manifest  usurpation  on  the  rights  of  other  States.  If 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  be  a  government  proper, 
with  authority  to  pass  laws,  and  to  give  them  a  uniform  inter- 
pretation and  execution,  then  the  interposition  of  a  State,  to 
enforce  her  own  construction,  and  to  resist,  as  to  herself,  that 
law  which  binds  the  other  States,  is  a  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution. 

If  that  be  revolutionary  which  arrests  the  legislative,  execu- 
tive, and  judicial  power  of  government,  dispenses  with  existing 
oaths  and  obligations  of  obedience,  and  elevates  another  power 
to  supreme  dominion,  then  nullification  is  revolutionary.  Or  if 
that  be  revolutionary  .the  natural  tendency  and  practical  effect 
of  which  are  to  break  the  Union  into  fragments,  to  sever  all  con- 
nection among  the  people  of  the  respective  States,  and  to  pros- 
trate this  general  government  in  the  dust,  then  nullification  is 
revolutionary. 

Nullification,  Sir,  is  as  distinctly  revolutionary  as  secession ; 
but  I  cannot  say  that  the  revolution  which  it  seeks  is  one  of 
so  respectable  a  character.'  Secession  would,  it  is  true,  abandon 
the  Constitution  altogether ;  but  then  it  would  profess  to  aban- 
don it.  Whatever  other  inconsistencies  it  might  run  into,  one, 
at  least,  it  would  avoid.  It  would  not  belong  to  a  government, 
while  it  rejected  its  authority.  It  would  not  repel  the  burden, 
and  continue  to  enjoy  the  benefits.  It  would  not  aid  in  passing 
laws  which  others  are  to  obey,  and  yet  reject  their  authority  as 
to  its°lf.  It  would  not  undertake  to  reconcile  obedience  to  pub- 
lic authority  with  an  asserted  right  of  command  over  that  same 


BETWEEN  SOVEREIGN   STATES.  491 

authority.  It  would  not  be  in  the  government,  and  above  the 
government,  at  the  same  time.  But  though  secession  may  be  a 
more  respectable  mode  of  attaining  the  object  than  nullification, 
it  is  not  more  truly  revolutionary.  Each,  and  both,  resist  the 
constitutional  authorities ;  each,  and  both,  would  sever  the 
Union,  and  subvert  the  government. 

Mr.  President,  having  detained  the  Senate  so  long  already,  I 
will  not  now  examine  at  length  the  ordinance  and  laws  of 
South  Carolina.  These  papers  are  well  drawn  for  their  pur- 
pose. Their  authors  understood  their  own  objects.  They  are 
called  a  peaceable  remedy,  and  we  have  been  told  that  South 
Carolina,  after  all,  intends  nothing  but  a  lawsuit.  A  very  few 
words,  Sir,  will  show  the  nature  of  this  peaceable  remedy,  and 
of  the  lawsuit  which  South  Carolina  contemplates. 

In  the  first  place,  the  ordinance  declares  the  law  of  last  July, 
and  all  other  laws  of  the  United  States  laying  duties,  to  be  ab- 
solutely null  and  void,  and  makes  it  unlawful  for  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  United  States  to  enforce  the  payment  of  such 
duties.  It  is  therefore,  Sir,  an  indictable  offence,  at  this  mo- 
ment, in  South  Carolina,  for  any  person  to  be  concerned  in  col- 
lecting revenue  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  It  being 
declared,  by  what  is  considered  a  fundamental  law  of  the  State, 
unlawful  to  collect  these  duties,  an  indictment  lies,  of  course, 
against  any  one  concerned  in  such  collection ;  and  he  is,  on 
general  principles,  liable  to  be  punished  by  fine  and  imprison- 
ment. The  terms,  it  is  true,  are,  that  it  is  unlawful  "to  enforce 
the  payment  of  duties  "  ;  but  every  custom-house  officer  enforces 
payment  while  he  detains  the  goods  in  order  to  obtain  such 
payment.  The  ordinance,  therefore,  reaches  every  body  con- 
cerned in  the  collection  of  the  duties. 

This  is  the  first  step  in  the  prosecution  of  the  peaceable  rem- 
edy. The  second  is  more  decisive.  By  the  act  commonly 
called  the  replevin  law,  any  person,  whose  goods  are  seized  or 
detained  by  the  collector  for  the  payment  of  duties,  may  sue 
out  a  writ  of  replevin,  and,  by  virtue  of  that  writ,  the  goods  are 
to  be  restored  to  him.  A  writ  of  replevin  is  a  writ  which  the 
sheriff  is  bound  to  execute,  and  for  the  execution  of  which  he 
is  bound  to  employ  force,  if  necessary.  He  may  call  out  the 
vosse,  and  must  do  so,  if  resistance  be  made.  This  posse  may 
be  armed  or  unarmed.  It  may  come  forth  with  military  array, 


492       THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT. 

and  under  the  lead  of  military  men.  Whatever  number  of 
troops  may  be  assembled  in  Charleston,  they  may  be  sum- 
moned, with  the  governor,  or  commander-in-chief,  at  their  head. 
to  come  in  aid  of  the  sheriff.  It  is  evident,  then,  Sir,  that  the 
whole  military  power  of  the  State  is  to  be  employed,  if  neces- 
sary, in  dispossessing  the  custom-house  officers,  and  in  seizing 
and  holding  the  goods,  without  paying  the  duties.  This  is  the 
second  step  in  the  peaceable  remedy. 

Sir,  whatever  pretences  may  be  set  up  to  the  contrary,  this 
is  the  direct  application  of  force,  and  of  military  force.  It  is 
unlawful,  in  itself,  to  replevy  goods  in  the  custody  of  the  col- 
lectors. But  this  unlawful  act  is  to  be  done,  and  it  is  to  be 
done  by  power.  Here  is  a  plain  interposition,  by  physical  force, 
to  resist  the  laws  of  the  Union.  The  legal  mode  of  collecting 
duties  is  to  detain  the  goods  till  such  duties  are  paid  or  secured. 
But  force  comes,  and  overpowers  the  collector  and  his  assist- 
ants, and  takes  away  the  goods,  leaving  the  dude's  unpaid. 
There  cannot  be  a  clearer  case  of  forcible  resistance  to  law. 
And  it  is  provided  that  the  goods  thus  seized  shall  be  held 
against  any  attempt  to  retake  them,  by  the  same  force  which 
seized  them. 

Having  thus  dispossessed  the  officers  of  the  government  of  the 
goods,  without  payment  of  duties,  and  seized  and  secured  them 
by  the  strong  arm  of  the  State,  only  one  thing  more  remains 
to  be  done,  and  that  is,  to  cut  off  all  possibility  of  legal  redress; 
and  that,  too,  is  accomplished,  or  thought  to  be  accomplished. 
The  ordinance  declares,  that  all  judicial  proceedings,  founded  on 
the  revenue  laws  (including,  of  course,  proceedings  in  the  courts 
of  the  United  States),  shall  be  null  and  void.  This  nullifies  the 
judicial  power  of  the  United  States.  Then  comes  the  test-oath 
act.  This  requires  all  State  judges  and  jurors  in  the  State 
courts  to  swear  that  they  will  execute  the  ordinance,  and  all 
acts  of  the  legislature  passed  in  pursuance  thereof.  The  ordi- 
nance declares,  that  no  appeal  shall  be  allowed  from  the  decision 
of  the  State  courts  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ; 
and  the  replevin  act  makes  it  an  indictable  offence  for  any 
clerk  to  furnish  a  copy  of  the  record,  for  the  purpose  of  such 
appeal. 

The  two  principal  provisions  on  which  South  Carolina  relies, 
to  resist  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  nullify  the  author- 
'ty  of  this  government,  are,  therefore,  these :  — 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  493 

1.  A  forcible  seizure  of  goods,  before  duties  are  paid  or  se- 
cured, by  the  power  of  the  State,  civil  and  military. 

2.  The  taking  away,  by  the    most   effectual    means    in  her 
power,  of  all  legal  redress  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States; 
the  confining  of  judicial  proceedings  to  her  own  State  tribunals; 
and  the  compelling  of  her  judges  and  jurors  of  these  her  own 
courts  to  take  an  oath,  beforehand,  that  they  will  decide  all 
cases  according  to  the  ordinance,  and  the  acts  passed  under  it; 
that  is,  that  they  will  decide  the  cause  one  way.     They  do  not 
swear  to  try  it,  on  its  own  merits  ;  they  only  swear  to  decide 
it  as  nullification  requires. 

The  character,  Sir,  of  these  provisions  defies  comment 
Their  object  is  as  plain  as  their  means  are  extraordinary.  They 
propose  direct  resistance,  by  the  whole  power  of  the  State,  to 
laws  of  Congress,  and  cut  off,  by  methods  deemed  adequate, 
any  redress  by  legal  and  judicial  authority.  They  arrest  legis- 
lation, defy  the  executive,  and  banish  the  judicial  power  of  this 
government.  They  authorize  and  command  acts  to  be  done, 
and  done  by  force,  both  of  numbers  and  of  arms,  which,  if 
done,  and  done  by  force,  are  clearly  acts  of  rebellion  and  trea- 
son. 

Such,  Sir,  are  the  laws  of  South  Carolina :  such,  Sir,  is  the 
peaceable  remedy  of  nullification.  Has  not  nullification  reached. 
Sir,  even  thus  early,  that  point  of  direct  and  forcible  resist- 
ance to  law  to  which  I  intimated,  three  years  ago,  it  plainly 
tended  ? 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  what  is  the  reason  for  passing  laws 
like  these  ?  What  are  the  oppressions  experienced  under  the 
Union,  calling  for  measures  which  thus  threaten  to  sever  and 
destroy  it?  What  invasions  of  public  liberty,  what  ruin  to  pri- 
vate happiness,  what  long  list  of  rights  violated,  or  wrongs  un- 
redressed,  is  to  justify  to  the  country,  to  posterity,  and  to  the 
world,  this  assault  upon  the  free  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  this  great  and  glorious  work  of  our  fathers  ?  At  this 
very  moment,  Sir,  the  whole  land  smiles  in  peace,  and  rejoices 
in  plenty.  A  general  and  a  high  prosperity  pervades  the  coun- 
try ;  and,  judging  by  the  common  standard,  by  increase  of  pop- 
ulation and  wealth,  or  judging  by  the  opinions  of  that  portion 
of  her  people  not  embarked  in  these  dangerous  and  desperate 
measures,  this  prosperity  overspreads  South  Carolina  herself. 

VOL.  in.  42 


494  THE   CONSTITUTION    NOT  A   COMPACT 

Thus  happy  at  home,  our  country,  at  the  same  time,  holds 
high  the  character  of  her  institutions,  her  power,  her  rapid  growth, 
and  her  future  destiny,  in  the  eyes  of  all  foreign  states.  One 
danger  only  creates  hesitation ;  one  doubt  only  exists,  to  darken 
the  otherwise  unclouded  brightness  of  that  aspect  which  she  ex- 
hibits to  the  view  and  to  the  admiration  of  the  world.  Need  I 
say,  that  that  doubt  respects  the  permanency  of  our  Union  ? 
and  need  I  say,  that  that  doubt  is  now  caused,  more  than 
anything  else,  by  these  very  proceedings  of  South  Carolina? 
Sir,  all  Europe  is,  at  this  moment,  beholding  us,  and  looking  for 
the  issue  of  this  controversy ;  those  who  hate  free  institutions, 
with  malignant  hope;  those  who  love  them,  with  deep  anxiety 
and  shivering  fear. 

The  cause,  then,  Sir,  the  cause!  Let  the  world  know  the 
cause  which  has  thus  induced  one  State  of  the  Union  to  bid  de- 
fiance to  the  power  of  the  whole,  and  openly  to  talk  of  secession. 
Sir,  the  world  will  scarcely  believe  that  this  whole  controver- 
sy, and  all  the  desperate  measures  which  its  support  requires, 
have  no  other  foundation  than  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  a 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  between  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  South  Carolina,  on  one  side,  and  a  vast  majority  of  the  whole 
people  of  the  United  States,  on  the  other.  It  will  not  credit  the 
fact,  it  will  not  admit  the  possibility,  that,  in  an  enlightened  age, 
in  a  free,  popular  republic,  under  a  constitution  where  the  people 
govern,  as  they  must  always  govern  under  such  systems,  by  ma- 
jorities, at  a  time  of  unprecedented  prosperity,  without  practical 
oppression,  without  evils  such  as  may  not  only  be  pretended, 
but  felt  and  experienced,  —  evils  not  slight  or  temporary,  but 
deep,  permanent,  and  intolerable,  —  a  single  State  should  rush 
into  conflict  with  all  the  rest,  attempt  to  put  down  the  power 
of  the  Union  by  her  own  laws,  and  to  support  those  laws  by  her 
military  power,  and  thus  break  up  and  destroy  the  world's  last 
hope.  And  well  the  world  may  be  incredulous.  We,  who  see 
and  hear  it,  can  ourselves  hardly  yet  believe  it.  Even  after  all 
that  had  preceded  it,  this  ordinance  struck  the  country  with 
amazement.  It  was  incredible  and  inconceivable  that  South 
Carolina  should  plunge  headlong  into  resistance  to  the  laws  on 
a  matter  of  opinion,  and  on  a  question  in  which  the  preponder- 
ance of  opinion,  both  of  the  present  day  and  of  all  past  time, 
was  so  overwhelmingly  against  her.  The  ordinance  declares 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN    STATES.  495 

that  Congress  has  exceeded  its  just  power  by  laying  duties  on 
imports,  intended  for  the  protection  of  manufactures.  This  is 
the  opinion  of  South  Carolina ;  and  on  the  strength  of  that  opin- 
ion she  nullifies  the  laws.  Yet  has  the  rest  of  the  country  no 
right  to  its  opinion  also?  Is  one  State  to  sit  sole  arbitress? 
She  maintains  that  those  laws  are  plain,  deliberate,  and  palpa- 
ble violations  of  the  Constitution ;  that  she  has  a  sovereign  right 
to  decide  this  matter;  and  that,  having  so  decided,  she  is  author- 
ized to  resist  their  execution  by  her  own  sovereign  power ;  and 
she  declares  that  she  will  resist  it,  though  such  resistance  should 
shatter  the  Union  into  atoms. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  the  propriety  of  these 
laws  at  large ;  but  I  will  ask,  How  are  they  shown  to  be  thus 
plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional  ?  Have  they  no  counte- 
nance at  all  in  the  Constitution  itself?  Are  they  quite  new  in 
the  history  of  the  government?  Are  they  a  sudden  and  violent 
usurpation  on  the  rights  of  the  States  ?  Sir,  what  will  the  civil- 
ized world  say,  what  will  posterity  say,  when  they  learn  that 
similar  laws  have  existed  from  the  very  foundation  of  the  gov- 
ernment, that  for  thirty  years  the  power  was  never  questioned, 
and  that  no  State  in  the  Union  has  more  freely  and  unequivo- 
cally admitted  it  than  South  Carolina  herself? 

To  lay  and  collect  duties  and  imposts  is  an  express  power 
granted  by  the  Constitution  to  Congress.  It  is,  also,  an  exclu- 
sive power;  for  the  Constitution  as  expressly  prohibits  all  the 
States  from  exercising  it  themselves.  This  express  and  exclu- 
sive power  is  unlimited  in  the  terms  of  the  grant,  but  is  attended 
with  two  specific  restrictions:  first,  that  all  duties  and  imposts 
shall  be  equal  in  all  the  States;  second,  that  no  duties  shall  be 
laid  on  exports.  The  power,  then,  being  granted,  and  being  at- 
tended with  these  two  restrictions,  and  no  more,  who  is  to  im- 
pose a  third  restriction  on  the  general  words  of  the  grant?  If 
the  power  to  lay  duties,  as  known  among  all  other  nations,  and 
as  known  in  all  our  history,  and  as  it  was  perfectly  understood 
when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  includes  a  right  of  discrim- 
inating while  exercising  the  power,  and  of  laying  some  duties 
heavier  and  some  lighter,  for  the  sake  of  encouraging  our  own 
domestic  products,  what  authority  is  there  for  giving  to  the 
words  used  in  the  Constitution  a  new,  narrow,  and  unusual 
meaning?  All  the  limitations  which  the  Constitution  intended, 


496  THE  CONSTITUTION   NOT  A  COMPACT 

it  has  expressed  ;  and  what  it  has  left  unrestricted  is  as  much  a 
part  of  its  will  as  the  restraints  which  it  has  imposed. 

But  these  laws,  it  is  said,  are  unconstitutional  on  account  of 
the  motive.  How,  Sir,  can  a  law  be  examined  on  any  such 
ground  ?  How  is  the  motive  to  be  ascertained  ?  One  house,  or 
one  member,  may  have  one  motive ;  the  other  house,  or  another 
member,  another.  One  motive  may  operate  to-day,  and  another 
to-morrow.  Upon  any  such  mode  of  reasoning  as  this,  one  iaw 
might  be  unconstitutional  now,  and  another  law,  in  exactly  the 
same  words,  perfectly  constitutional  next  year.  Besides,  ar- 
ticles may  not  only  be  taxed  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  home 
products,  but  other  articles  may  be  left  free,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose and  with  the  same  motive.  A  law,  therefore,  would  become 
unconstitutional  from  what  it  omitted,  as  well  as  from  what  it 
contained.  Mr.  President,  it  is  a  settled  principle,  acknowledged 
in  all  legislative  halls,  recognized  before  all  tribunals,  sanctioned 
by  the  general  sense  and  understanding  of  mankind,  that  there 
can  be  no  inquiry  into  the  motives  of  those  who  pass  laws,  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  on  their  validity.  If  the  law  be 
within  the  fair  meaning  of  the  words  in  the  grant  of  the  power, 
its  authority  must  be  admitted  until  it  is  repealed.  This  rule, 
everywhere  acknowledged,  everywhere  admitted,  is  so  universal 
and  so  completely  without  exception,  that  even  an  allegation 
of  fraud,  in  the  majority  of  a  legislature,  is  not  allowed  as  a 
ground  to  set  aside  a  law. 

But,  Sir,  is  it  true  that  the  motive  for  these  laws  is  such  as  is 
stated  ?  I  think  not.  The  great  object  of  all  these  laws  is,  un- 
questionably, revenue.  If  there  were  no  occasion  for  revenue, 
the  laws  would  not  have  been  passed ;  and  it  is  notorious  that 
almost  the  entire  revenue  of  the  country  is  derived  from  them. 
And  as  yet  we  have  collected  none  too  much  revenue.  The 
treasury  has  not  been  more  reduced  for  many  years  than  it  is  at 
the  present  moment.  All  that  South  Carolina  can  say  is,  that, 
in  passing  the  laws  which  she  now  undertakes  to  nullify,  par- 
ticular imported  articles  were  taxed,  from  a  regard  to  the  protec- 
tion of  certain  articles  of  domestic  manufacture,  higher  than  they 
would  have  been  had  no  such  regard  been  entertained.  And  she 
insists  that,  according  to  the  Constitution,  no  such  discrimination 
can  be  allowed;  that  duties  should  be  laid  for  revenue,  and 
revenue  only ;  and  that  it  is  unlawful  to  have  reference,  in  any 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  497 

case,  to  protection.  In  other  words,  she  denies  the  power  of 
DISCRIMINATION.  She  does  not,  and  cannot,  complain  of  exces- 
sive taxation  ;  on  the  contrary,  she  professes  to  be  willing  to  pay 
any  amount  for  revenue,  merely  as  revenue ;  and  up  to  the  pres- 
ent moment  there  is  no  surplus  of  revenue.  Her  grievance,  then, 
that  plain  and  palpable  violation  of  the  Constitution  which  she 
insists  has  taken  place,  is  simply  the  exercise  of  the  power  of 
DISCRIMINATION.  Now,  Sir,  is  the  exercise  of  this  power  of  dis- 
crimination plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional  ? 

I  have  already  said,  the  power  to  lay  duties  is  given  by  the 
Constitution  in  broad  and  general  terms.  There  is  also  con- 
ferred on  Congress  the  whole  power  of  regulating  commerce,  in 
another  distinct  provision.  Is  it  clear  and  palpable,  Sir,  can  any 
man  say  it  is  a  case  beyond  doubt,  that,  under  these  two  pow- 
ers, Congress  may  not  justly  discriminate,  in  laying  duties,  for 
the  purpose  of  countervailing  the  policy  of  foreign  nations,  or  of  fa- 
voring our  own  home  productions  ?  Sir,  what  ought  to  conclude 
this  question  for  ever,  as  it  would  seem  to  me,  is,  that  the  regu- 
lation of  commerce  and  the  imposition  of  duties  are,  in  all  com- 
mercial nations,  powers  avowedly  and  constantly  exercised  for 
this  very  end.  That  undeniable  truth  ought  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion ;  because  the  Constitution  ought  to  be  considered,  when  it 
uses  well-known  language,  as  using  it  in  its  well-known  sense. 
But  it  is  equally  undeniable,  that  it  has  been,  from  the  very  first, 
fully  believed  that  this  power  of  discrimination  was  conferred  on 
Congress ;  and  the  Constitution  was  itself  recommended,  urged 
upon  the  people,  and  enthusiastically  insisted  on  in  some  of  the 
States,  for  that  very  reason.  Not  that,  at  that  time,  the  counr 
try  was  extensively  engaged  in  manufactures,  especially  of  the 
kinds  now  existing.  But  the  trades  and  crafts  of  the  seaport 
towns,  the  business  of  the  artisans  and  manual  laborers,  —  those 
employments,  the  work  in  which  supplies  so  great  a  portion  of 
the  daily  wants  of  all  classes,  —  all  these  looked  to  the  new 
Constitution  as  a  source  of  relief  from  the  severe  distress  which 
followed  the  war.  It  would,  Sir,  be  unpardonable,  at  so  late  an 
hour,  to  go  into  details  on  this  point ;  but  the  truth  is  as  I  have 
stated.  The  papers  of  the  day,  the  resolutions  of  public  meet- 
ings, the  debates  in  the  conventions,  all  that  we  open  our  eyes 
upon  in  the  history  of  the  times,  prove  it. 

Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  has  re- 
42* 


498  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

ferred  to  two  incidents  connected  with  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention  at  Philadelphia,  which  he  thinks  are  evidence  to 
show  that  the  power  of  protecting  manufactures  by  laying  du- 
ties, and  by  commercial  regulations,  was  not  intended  to  be 
given  to  Congress.  The  first  is,  as  he  says,  that  a  power  to 
protect  manufactures  was  expressly  proposed,  but  not  granted. 
I  think,  Sir,  the  gentleman  is  quite  mistaken  in  relation  to  this 
part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention.  The  whole  history  of 
the  occurrence  to  which  he  alludes  is  simply  this.  Towards  the 
conclusion  of  the  Convention,  after  the  provisions  of  the  Consti- 
tution had  been  mainly  agreed  upon,  after  the  power  to  lay  du- 
ties and  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  had  both  been  granted, 
a  long  list  of  propositions  was  made  and  referred  to  the  commit- 
tee, containing  various  misceUaneous  powers,  some  or  ah1  of  which 
it  was  thought  might  be  properly  vested  in  Congress.  Among 
these  was  a  power  to  establish  a  university ;  to  grant  charters  of 
incorporation  ;  to  regulate  stage-coaches  on  the  post-roads ;  and 
also  the  power  to  which  the  gentleman  refers,  and  which  is 
expressed  in  these  words :  "  To  establish  public  institutions, 
rewards,  and  immunities,  for  the  promotion  of  agriculture,  com- 
merce, trades,  and  manufactures."  The  committee  made  no  re- 
port on  this  or  various  other  propositions  in  the  same  list.  But 
the  only  inference  from  this  omission  is,  that  neither  the  commit- 
tee nor  the  Convention  thought  it  proper  to  authorize  Congress 
"to  establish  public  institutions,  rewards,  and  immunities,"  for  the 
promotion  of  manufactures,  and  other  interests.  The  Convention 
supposed  it  had  done  enough,  —  at  any  rate,  it  had  done  all  it 
intended,  —  when  it  had  given  to  Congress,  in  general  terms,  the 
power  to  lay  imposts  and  the  power  to  regulate  trade.  It  is  not 
to  be  argued,  from  its  omission  to  give  more,  that  it  meant  to 
take  back  what  it  had  already  given.  It  had  given  the  impost 
power;  it  had  given  the  regulation  of  trade;  and  it  did  not 
deem  it  necessary  to  give  the  further  and  distinct  power  of  es- 
tablishing public  institutions. 

The  other  fact,  Sir,  on  which  the  gentleman  relies,  is  the  dec- 
laration of  Mr.  Martin  to  the  legislature  of  Maryland.  The 
gentleman  supposes  Mr.  Martin  to  have  urged  against  the  Con- 
stitution, that  it  did  not  contain  the  power  of  protection.  But 
if  the  gentleman  will  look  again  at  what  Mr.  Martin  said,  he 
will  find,  I  think,  that  what  Mr.  Martin  complained  c  f  was,  that 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN  STATES.  499 

the  Constitution,  by  its  prohibitions  on  the  States,  had  taken 
away  from  the  States  themselves  the  power  of  protecting  their 
own  manufactures  by  duties  on  imports.  This  is  undoubtedly 
true ;  but  I  find  no  expression  of  Mr.  Martin  intimating  that  the 
Constitution  had  not  conferred  on  Congress  the  same  power 
which  it  had  thus  taken  from  the  States. 

But,  Sir,  let  us  go  to  the  first  Congress ;  let  us  look  in  upon 
this  and  the  other  house,  at  the  first  session  of  their  organiza- 
tion. 

We  see,  in  both  houses,  men  distinguished  among  the  fram- 
ers,  friends,  and  advocates  of  the  Constitution.  We  see  in 
both,  those  who  had  drawn,  discussed,  and  matured  the  instru- 
ment in  the  Convention,  explained  and  defended  it  before  the 
people,  and  were  now  elected  members  of  Congress,  to  put  the 
new  government  into  motion,  and  to  carry  the  powers  of  the 
Constitution  into  beneficial  execution.  At  the  head  of  the  gov- 
ernment was  WASHINGTON  himself,  who  had  been  President  of 
the  Convention  ;  and  in  his  cabinet  were  others  most  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Constitution,  and  distin- 
guished for  the  part  taken  in  its  discussion.  If  these  persons 
were  not  acquainted  with  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  if 
they  did  not  understand  the  work  of  their  own  hands,  who  can 
understand  it,  or  who  shall  now  interpret  it  to  us? 

Sir,  the  volume  which  records  the  proceedings  and  debates  of 
the  first  session  of  the  House  of  Representatives  lies  before  me. 
I  open  it,  and  I  find  that,  having  provided  for  the  administration 
of  the  necessary  oaths,  the  very  first  measure  proposed  for  con 
sideration  is,  the  laying  of  imposts ;  and  in  the  very  first  com 
mittee  of  the  whole  into  which  the  House  of  Representatives 
ever  resolved  itself,  on  this  its  earliest  subject,  and  in  this  its 
very  first  debate,  the  duty  of  so  laying  the  imposts  as  to  encour- 
age manufactures  was  advanced  and  enlarged  upon  by  almost 
every  speaker,  and  doubted  or  denied  by  none.  The  first  gen- 
tleman who  suggests  this  as  the  clear  duty  of  Congress,  and  as 
an  object  necessary  to  be  attended  to,  is  Mr.  Fitzsimons,  of 
Pennsylvania;  the  second,  Mr.  White,  of  VIRGINIA;  the  third, 
Mr.  Tucker,  of  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

But  the  great  leader,  Sir,  on  this  occasion,  was  Mr.  Madison. 
Was  he  likely  to  know  the  intentions  of  the  Convention  and  the 
people?  Was  he  likely  to  understand  the  Constitution?  Al 


500  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A   COMPACT 

the  second  sitting  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Madison  explained  his 
own  opinions  of  the  duty  of  Congress,  fully  and  explicitly.  I 
must  not  detain  you,  Sir,  with  more  than  a  few  short  extracts 
from  these  opinions,  but  they  are  such  as  are  clear,  intelligible, 
and  decisive.  "  The  States,"  says  he,  "  that  are  most  advanced 
in  population,  and  ripe  for  manufactures,  ought  to  have  their 
particular  interest  attended  to,  in  some  degree.  While  these 
States  retained  the  power  of  making  regulations  of  trade,  they 
had  the  power  to  cherish  such  institutions.  By  adopting  the 
present  Constitution,  they  have  thrown  the  exercise  of  this  power 
into  other  hands ;  they  must  have  done  this  with  an  expectation 
that  those  interests  would  not  be  neglected  here."  In  another 
report  of  the  same  speech,  Mr.  Madison  is  represented  as  using 
still  stronger  language ;  as  saying  that,  the  Constitution  having 
taken  this  power  away  from  the  States  and  conferred  it  on  Con- 
gress, it  would  be  a  fraud  on  the  States  and  on  the  people  were 
Congress  to  refuse  to  exercise  it. 

Mr.  Madison  argues,  Sir,  on  this  early  and  interesting  occa- 
sion, very  justly  and  liberally,  in  favor  of  the  general  principles 
of  unrestricted  commerce.  But  he  argues,  also,  with  equal  force 
and  clearness,  for  certain  important  exceptions  to  these  general 
principles.  The  first,  Sir,  respects  those  manufactures  which  had 
been  brought  forward  under  encouragement  by  the  State  govern- 
ments. "  It  would  be  cruel,"  says  Mr.  Madison,  "  to  neglect 
them,  and  to  divert  their  industry  into  other  channels ;  for  it  is 
not  possible  for  the  hand  of  man  to  shift  from  one  employment 
to  another  without  being  injured  by  the  change."  Again : 
"  There  may  be  some  manufactures  which,  being  once  formed, 
can  advance  towards  perfection  without  any  adventitious  aid ; 
while  others,  for  want  of  the  fostering  hand  of  government,  will 
be  unable  to  go  on  at  all.  Legislative  provision,  therefore,  will 
be  necessary  to  collect  the  proper  objects  for  this  purpose ;  and 
this  will  form  another  exception  to  my  general  principle."  And 
again :  "  The  next  exception  that  occurs  is  one  on  which  great 
stress  is  laid  by  some  well-informed  men,  and  this  with  great 
plausibility ;  that  each  nation  should  have,  within  itself,  the 
means  of  defence,  independent  of  foreign  supplies ;  that,  in 
whatever  relates  to  the  operations  of  war,  no  State  ought  to  de- 
pend upon  a  precarious  supply  from  any  part  of  the  world. 
There  may  be  some  truth  in  this  remark  ;  and  therefore  it  is 
proper  for  legislative  attention/' 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN    STATES.  501 

In  the  same  debate,  Sir,  Mr.  Burk,  from  SOUTH  CAROLINA, 
supported  a  duty  on  hemp,  for  the  express  purpose  of  encourag- 
ing its  growth  on  the  strong  lands  of  South  Carolina.  "  Cot- 
ton," he  said,  "  was  also  in  contemplation  among  them,  and,  if 
good  seed  could  be  procured,  he  hoped  might  succeed."  After- 
wards, Sir,  the  cotton  was  obtained,  its  culture  was  protected, 
and  it  did  succeed.  Mr.  Smith,  a  very  distinguished  member 
from  the  SAME  {JJTATE,  observed :  "  It  has  been  said,  and  justly, 
that  the  States  which  adopted  this  Constitution  expected  its  ad- 
ministration would  be  conducted  with  a  favorable  hand.  The 
manufacturing  States  wished  the  encouragement  of  manufac- 
tures, the  maritime  States  the  encouragement  of  ship-building, 
and  the  agricultural  States  the  encouragement  of  agriculture." 

Sir,  I  will  detain  the  Senate  by  reading  no  more  extracts  from 
these  debates.  I  have  already  shown  a  majority  of  the  members 
of  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  in  this  very  first  session,  acknowledging 
this  power  of  protection,  voting  for  its  exercise,  and  proposing 
its  extension  to  their  own  products.  Similar  propositions  came 
from  Virginia ;  and,  indeed,  Sir,  in  the  whole  debate,  at  what- 
ever page  you  open  the  volume,  you  find  the  power  admit- 
ted, and  you  find  it  applied  to  the  protection  of  particular  ar- 
ticles, or  not  applied,  according  to  the  discretion  of  Congress. 
No  man  denied  the  power,  no  man  doubted  it ;  the  only  ques- 
tions were,  in  regard  to  the  several  articles  proposed  to  be  taxed, 
whether  they  were  fit  subjects  for  protection,  and  what  the 
amount  of  that  protection  ought  to  be.  Will  gentlemen,  Sir, 
now  answer  the  argument  drawn  from  these  proceedings  of  the 
first  Congress?  Will  they  undertake  to  deny  that  that  Con- 
gress did  act  on  the  avowed  principle  of  protection  ?  Or,  if  they 
admit  it,  will  they  tell  us  how  those  who  framed  the  Constitu- 
tion fell,  thus  early,  into  this  great  mistake  about  its  meaning  ? 
Will  they  tell  us  how  it  should  happen  that  they  had  so  soon 
forgotten  their  own  sentiments  and  their  own  purposes  ?  I  con- 
fess I  have  seen  no  answer  to  this  argument,  nor  any  respect- 
able attempt  to  answer  it.  And,  Sir,  how  did  this  debate  ter- 
minate? What  law  was  passed?  There  it  stands,  Sir,  among 
the  statutes,  the  second  law  in  the  book.  It  has  a  preamble, 
and  that  preamble  expressly  recites,  that  the  duties  which  it  im- 
poses are  laid  "  for  the  support  of  government,  for  the  discharge 
of  the  debts  of  the  United  States,  and  the  encouragement  and  pro- 


502  THE  CONSTITUTION   NOT  A   COMPACT 

tection  of  manufactures"  Until,  Sir,  this  early  legislation,  thus 
coeval  with  the  Constitution  itself,  thus  full  and  explicit,  can  be 
explained  away,  no  man  can  doubt  of  the  meaning  of  that  in- 
strument, in  this  respect. 

Mr.  President,  this  power  of  discrimination,  thus  admitted, 
avowed,  and  practised  upon  in  the  first  revenue  act,  has  never 
been  denied  or  doubted  until  within  a  few  years  past.  It  was 
not  at  all  doubted  in  1816,  when  it  became  necessary  to  adjust 
the  revenue  to  a  state  of  peace.  On  the  contrary,  the  power 
was  then  exercised,  not  without  opposition  as  to  its  expediency, 
but,  as  far  as  I  remember  or  have  understood,  without  the 
slightest  opposition  founded  on  any  supposed  want  of  consti- 
tutional authority.  Certainly,  SOUTH  CAROLINA  did  not  doubt 
it.  The  tariff  of  1816  was  introduced,  carried  through,  and  es- 
tablished, under  the  lead  of  South  Carolina.  Even  the  minimum 
policy  is  of  South  Carolina  origin.  The  honorable  gentleman 
himself  supported,  and  ably  supported,  the  tariff  of  1816.  He 
has  informed  us,  Sir,  that  his  speech  on  that  occasion  was  sud- 
den and  off-hand,  he  being  called  up  by  the  request  of  a  friend. 
I  am  sure  the  gentleman  so  remembers  it,  and  that  it  was  so ; 
but  there  is,  nevertheless,  much  method,  arrangement,  and  clear 
exposition  in  that  extempore  speech.  It  is  very  able,  very,  very 
much  to  the  point,  and  very  decisive.  And  in  another  speech, 
delivered  two  months  earlier,  on  the  proposition  to  repeal  the 
internal  taxes,  the  honorable  gentleman  had  touched  the  same 
subject,  and  had  declared  "  that  a  certain  encouragement  ought  to 
be  extended  at,  least  to  our  woollen  and  cotton  manufactures"  1 
do  not  quote  these  speeches,  Sir,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  honorable  gentleman  has  changed  his  opinion :  my  ob- 
ject is  other  and  higher.  I  do  it  for  the  sake  of  saying  that 
that  cannot  be  so  plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional  as  to 
warrant  resistance  to  law,  nullification,  and  revolution,  which  the 
honorable  gentleman  and  his  friends  have  heretofore  agreed  to 
and  acted  upon  without  doubt  and  without  hesitation.  Sir,  it 
is  no  answer  to  say  that  the  tariff  of  1816  was  a  revenue  bill. 
So  are  they  all  revenue  bills.  The  point  is,  and  the  truth  is,  that 
the  tariff  of  1816,  like  the  rest,  did  discriminate ;  it  did  distin- 
guish one  article  from  another;  it  did  lay  duties  for  protec- 
tion. Look  to  the  case  of  coarse  cottons  under  the  minimum 
calculation:  the  duty  on  these  was  from  sixty  to  eighty  per 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN   STATES.  503 

cent.  Something  beside  revenue,  certainly,  was  intended  in 
this;  and,  in  fact,  the  law  cut  up  our  whole  commerce  with 
India  in  that  article. 

It  is,  Sir,  only  within  a  few  years  that  Carolina  has  denied 
the  constitutionality  of  these  protective  laws.  The  gentleman 
himself  has  narrated  to  us  the  true  history  of  her  proceedings  on 
this  point.  He  says,  that,  after  the  passing  of  the  law  of  1828, 
despairing  then  of  being  able  to  abolish  the  system  of  protec- 
tion, political  men  went  forth  among  the  people,  and  set  up  the 
doctrine  that  the  system  was  unconstitutional.  "  And  the  peo- 
ple" says  the  honorable  gentleman,  "received  the  doctrine" 
This,  I  believe,  is  true,  Sir.  The  people  did  then  receive  the 
doctrine ;  they  had  never  entertained  it  before.  Down  to  that 
period,  the  constitutionality  of  these  laws  had  been  no  more 
doubted  in  South  Carolina  than  elsewhere.  And  I  suspect  it  is 
truej  Sir,  and  I  deem  it  a  great  misfortune,  that,  to  the  present 
moment,  a  great  portion  of  the  people  of  the  State  have  never 
yet  seen  more  than  one  side  of  the  argument.  I  believe  that 
thousands  of  honest  men  are  involved  in  scenes  now  passing, 
led  away  by  one-sided  views  of  the  question,  and  following 
their  leaders  by  the  impulses  of  an  unlimited  confidence.  De- 
pend upon  it,  Sir,  if  we  can  avoid  the  shock  of  arms,  a  day  for 
reconsideration  and  reflection  will  come ;  truth  and  reason  will 
act  with  their  accustomed  force,  and  the  public  opinion  of  South 
Carolina  will  be  restored  to  its  usual  constitutional  and  patriotic 
tone. 

But,  Sir,  I  hold  South  Carolina  to  her  ancient,  her  cool,  her 
uninfluenced,  her  deliberate  opinions.  I  hold  her  to  her  own 
admissions,  nay,  to  her  own  claims  and  pretensions,  in  1789,  in 
the  first  Congress,  and  to  her  acknowledgments  and  avowed  sen- 
timents through  a  long  series  of  succeeding  years.  I  hold  her 
to  the  principles  on  which  she  led  Congress  to  act  in  1816 ;  or, 
if  she  have  changed  her  own  opinions,  I  claim  some  respect  for 
those  who  still  retain  the  same  opinions.  I  say  she  is  precluded 
from  asserting  that  doctrines,  which  she  has  herself  so  long  and 
so  ably  sustained,  are  plain,  palpable,  and  dangerous  violations 
of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  President,  if  the  friends  of  nullification  should  be  able  to 
propagate  their  opinions,  and  give  them  practical  effect,  they 
would,  in  my  judgment,  prove  themselves  the  most  skilful  "ar- 


504  THE  CONSTITUTION  NOT  A  COMPACT 

chitecfe  of  ruin,"  the  most  effectual  extinguishers  of  high-raised 
expectation,  the  greatest  blasters  of  human  hopes,  that  any 
age  has  produced.  They  would  stand  up  to  proclaim,  in  tones 
which  would  pierce  the  ears  of  half  the  human  race,  that  the 
last  great  experiment  of  representative  government  had  failed. 
They  would  send  forth  sounds,  at  the  hearing  of  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  right  of  kings  would  feel,  even  in  its  grave, 
a  returning  sensation  of  vitality  and  resuscitation.  Millions  of 
eyes,  of  those  who  now  feed  their  inherent  love  of  liberty  on 
the  success  of  the  American  example,  would  turn  away  from 
beholding  our  dismemberment,  and  find  no  place  on  earth 
whereon  to  rest  their  gratified  sight.  Amidst  the  incantations 
and  orgies  of  nullification,  secession,  disunion,  and  revolution, 
would  be  celebrated  the  funeral  rites  of  constitutional  and  repub- 
lican liberty. 

But,  Sir,  if  the  government  do  its  duty,  if  it  act  with  firmness 
and  with  moderation,  these  opinions  cannot  prevail.  Be  assured, 
Sir,  be  assured,  that,  among  the  political  sentiments  of  this  peo- 
ple, the  love  of  union  is  still  uppermost.  They  will  stand  fast 
by  the  Constitution,  and  by  those  who  defend  it.  I  rely  on  no 
temporary  expedients,  on  no  political  combination ;  but  I  rely 
on  the  true  American  feeling,  the  genuine  patriotism  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  imperative  decision  of  the  public  voice.  Disorder 
and  confusion,  indeed,  may  arise ;  scenes  of  commotion  and 
contest  are  threatened,  and  perhaps  may  come.  With  my  whole 
heart,  I  pray  for  the  continuance  of  the  domestic  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  country.  I  desire,  most  ardently,  the  restoration  of 
affection  and  harmony  to  all  its  parts.  I  desire  that  every  citi- 
zen of  the  whole  country  may  look  to  this  government  with  no 
other  sentiments  than  those  of  grateful  respect  and  attachment. 
But  I  cannot  yield  even  to  kind  feelings  the  cause  of  the  Con- 
stitution, the  true  glory  of  the  country,  and  the  great  trust  which 
we  hold  in  our  hands  for  succeeding  ages.  If  the  Constitution 
cannot  be  maintained  without  meeting  these  scenes  of  commo- 
tion and  contest,  however  unwelcome,  they  must  come.  We 
cannot,  we  must  not,  we  dare  not,  omit  to  do  that  which,  in  our 
judgment,  the  safety  of  the  Union  requires.  Not  regardless  of 
consequences,  we  must  yet  meet  consequences ;  seeing  the  haz- 
ards which  surround  the  discharge  of  public  duty,  it  must  yet  be 
discharged.  For  myself,  Sir,  I  shun  no  responsibility  justly  de- 


BETWEEN   SOVEREIGN    STATES.  505 

volving  on  me,  here  or  elsewhere,  in  attempting  to  maintain  the 
cause.  I  am  bound  to  it  by  indissoluble  ties  of  affection  and 
duty,  and  I  shall  cheerfully  partake  in  its  fortunes  and  its  fate, 
I  am  ready  to  perform  my  own  appropriate  part,  whenever  and 
wherever  the  occasion  may  call  on  me,  and  to  take  my  chance 
among  those  upon  whom  blows  may  fall  first  and  fall  thickest. 
I  shall  exert  every  faculty  I  possess  in  aiding  to  prevent  the 
Constitution  from  being  nullified,  destroyed,  or  impaired;  and 
even  should  I  see  it  fall,  I  will  still,  with  a  voice  feeble,  perhaps, 
but  earnest  as  ever  issued  from  human  lips,  and  with  fidelity 
and  zeal  which  nothing  shall  extinguish,  call  on  the  PEOPLE 
to  come  to  its  rescue. 


VOL.  in.  43 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS/ 


THE  charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  provided  that  the  pub- 
Uc  moneys  should  be  deposited  in  the  bank,  subject  to  removal  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  grounds  to  be  submitted  to  Congress.  In 
the  session  of  1832,  Congress  had  passed  a  resolution,  by  a  very  large 
majority,  that  the  public  deposits  were  safe  in  the  custody  of  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States.  General  Jackson,  having  applied  his  veto  to  the 
bill  for  renewing  the  charter  of  the  bank,  was  determined,  notwithstand- 
ing this  expression  of  the  opinion  of  Congress,  that  the  public  deposits 
should  be  transferred  to  an  association  of  selected  State  banks.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  (Mr.  M'Lane),  having  declined  to  order  the 
transfer,  was  appointed  Secretary  of  State,  in  the  expectation  that  his 
successor  (Mr.  Duane)  would  execute  the  President's  will  in  that  respect. 
On  the  10th  of  September,  1833,  an  elaborate  paper  was  read  by  Gen- 
eral Jackson  to  the  Cabinet,  announcing  his  reasons  for  the  removal  of 
the  deposits,  and  appointing  the  1st  of  October  as  the  day  when  it  should 
take  place.  On  the  21st  of  September,  M*.  Duane  made  known  to  the 
President  his  intention  not  to  order  the  removal.  He  was  dismissed 
from  office,  and  Mr.  Taney,  the  present  Chief  Justice,  appointed  in  his 
place,  by  whom  the  requisite  order  for  the  removal  of  the  public  mon- 
eys to  the  State  banks  was  immediately  given. 

This  measure  produced  a  great  derangement  in  the  business  of  the 
country,  and  an  almost  total  suspension  of  the  accustomed  action  of  the 
financial  system.  Universal  distress  ensued.  Memorials  on  the  subject 
were  addressed  to  both  houses  of  Congress  from  the  principal  cities,  and 
very  many  of  the  public  bodies,  in  the  United  States.  These  memorials 
formed  the  subject  of  prolonged  and  animated  debate  during  the  session 
of  1833-34. 

On  the  20th  of  January,  Mr.  Webster  presented  to  the  Senate  a  series 

*  Remarks,  on  different  occasions,  on  the  Removal  of  the  Deposits,  and  on  the 
subject  of  a  National  Bank,  delivered  in  the.  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
course  of  the  session  of  1833  -  34 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  507 

of  resolutions  adopted  at  a  public  meeting  in  Boston,  of  a  remarkably 
temperate  and  argumentative  character,  in  which  the  prevailing  distress 
was  traced  mainly  to  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  and  the  restoration  of 
the  friendly  relations  between  the  government  and  the  Bank  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  was  mentioned  as  the  only  measure  of  relief  likely  to  prove 
effectual.  It  was  stated  in  one  of  the  resolutions,  that  the  meeting  con- 
sisted of  persons  "  of  all  classes  and  professions,  entertaining  various 
and  opposite  opinions  upon  the  question  of  rechartering  the  existing  na- 
tional bank  or  of  chartering  a  new  one,  and  that  few  of  them  have  any 
pecuniary  interest  involved  in  the  fate  of  that  institution." 

The  resolutions  having  been  read,  Mr.  Webster  addressed  the  Senate 
as  follows :  — 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  I  wish  to  bear  unequivocal  and  decided  tes- 
timony to  the  respectability,  intelligence,  and  disinterestedness 
of  the  long  list  of  gentlemen  at  whose  instance  this  meeting 
was  assembled.  The  meeting,  Sir,  was  connected  with  no  party 
purpose  whatever.  It  had  an  object  more  sober,  more  cogent, 
more  interesting  to  the  whole  community,  than  mere  party 
questions.  The  Senate  will  perceive  in  the  tone  of  these  res- 
olutions no  intent  to  exaggerate  or  inflame ;  no  disposition  to 
get  up  excitement  or  to  spread  alarm.  I  hope  the  restrained 
and  serious  manner,  the  moderation  of  temper,  and  the  exem- 
plary candor  of  these  resolutions,  in  connection  with  the  plain 
truths  which  they  contain,  will  give  them  just  weight  with  the 
Senate.  I  assure  you,  Sir,  the  members  composing  this  meet- 
ing were  neither  capitalists,  nor  speculators,  nor  alarmists. 
They  are  merchants,  traders,  mechanics,  artisans,  and  others  en- 
gaged in  the  active  business  of  life.  They  are  of  the  muscular 
portion  of  society;  and  they  desire  to  lay  before  Congress  an 
evil  which  they  feel  to  press  sorely  on  then-  occupations,  their 
earnings,  their  labor,  and  their  property;  and  to  express  their 
conscientious  conviction  of  the  causes  of  that  evil.  If  intelli- 
gence, if  pure  intention,  if  deep  and  wide-spread  connection 
with  business  in  its  various  branches,  if  thorough  practical 
knowledge  and  experience,  if  inseparable  union  between  their 
own  prosperity  and  the  prosperity  of  the  whole  country,  au- 
thorize men  to  speak,  and  give  them  a  right  to  be  heard, 
the  sentiments  of  this  meeting  ought  to  make  an  impression. 
For  one,  Sir,  I  entirely  concur  in  all  their  opinions.  I  adopt 
then  first  fourteen  resolutions,  without  alteration  or  qualifica- 


508  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

tion,  as  setting  forth  truly  the  present  state  of  things,  stating 
truly  its  causes,  and  pointing  to  the  true  remedy. 

Mr.  President,  now  that  I  am  speaking,  I  will  use  the  oppor- 
tunity to  say  a  few  words  which  I  intended  to  say  in  the  course 
of  the  morning,  on  the  coming  up  of  the  resolution  which  now 
lies  on  the  table ;  but  which  are  as  applicable  to  this  occasion 
as  to  that.  An  opportunity  may  perhaps  hereafter  be  afforded 
me  of  discussing  the  reasons  given  by  the  Secretary  for  the  very 
important  measure  adopted  by  him  in  removing  the  deposits 
But  as  I  know  not  how  near  that  time  may  be,  I  desire,  in  the 
mean  while,  to  make  my  opinions  known  without  reserve  on  the 
present  state  of  the  country.  Without  intending  to  discuss  any 
thing  at  present,  I  feel  it  my  duty,  nevertheless,  to  let  my  senti- 
ments and  my  convictions  be  understood. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  Sir,  I  agree  with  those  who  think  that 
there  is  a  severe  pressure  in  the  money  market,  and  very  serious 
embarrassment  felt  in  all  branches  of  the  national  industry.  I 
think  this  is  not  local,  but  general ;  general,  at  least,  over  every 
part  of  the  country  where  the  cause  has  yet  begun  to  operate,  and 
sure  to  become  not  only  general,  but  universal,  as  the  operation 
of  the  cause  shall  spread.  If  evidence  be  wanted,  in  addition  to 
ah1  that  is  told  us  by  those  who  know,  the  high  rate  of  interest, 
now  at  twelve  per  cent,  or  higher  where  it  was  hardly  six  last 
September,  the  depression  of  all  stocks,  some  ten,  some  twenty, 
Borne  thirty  per  cent.,  and  the  low  prices  of  commodities,  are 
proofs  abundantly  sufficient  to  show  the  existence  of  the  pres- 
sure. But,  Sir,  labor,  that  most  extensive  of  all  interests,  Amer- 
ican manual  labor,  feels,  or  will  feel,  the  shock  more  sensibly, 
far  more  sensibly,  than  capital,  or  property  of  any  kind.  Public 
works  have  stopped,  or  must  stop ;  great  private  undertakings, 
employing  many  hands,  have  ceased,  and  others  must  cease.  A 
great  lowering  of  the  rates  of  wages,  as  well  as  a  depreciation 
of  property,  is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  causes  now  in  full 
operation.  Serious  embarrassments  in  all  branches  of  business 
do  certainly  exist. 

I  am  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  there  is  undoubtedly  a  very 
severe  pressure  on  the  community,  which  Congress  ought  to  re- 
lieve, if  it  can ;  and  that  this  pressure  is  not  an  instance  of  the 
ordinary  reaction,  or  the  ebbing  and  flowing,  of  commercial 
affairs,  but  is  an  extraordinary  case,  produced  by  an  extraordi- 
nary cause. 


THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE   DEPOSITS.  509 

Jn  the  next  place,  Sir,  I  agree  entirely  with  the  eleventh  Bos- 
ton resolution,  as  to  the  causes  of  this  embarrassment.  We 
were  in  a  state  of  high  prosperity,  commercial  and  agricultural. 
Every  branch  of  business  was  pushed  far,  and  the  credit  as  well 
as  the  capital  of  the  country  employed  nearly  to  its  utmost  lim- 
its. In  this  state  of  affairs,  some  degree  of  over-trading  doubtless 
took  place,  which,  however,  if  nothing  else  had  occurred,  would 
have  been  seasonably  corrected  by  the  ordinary  and  necessary 
operation  of  things.  But  on  this  palmy  state  of  business  the  late 
measure  of  the  Secretary  fell,  and  has  acted  on  it  with  powerful 
and  lamentable  effect.  I  am  of  opinion,  that  such  a  cause  is 
entirely  adequate  to  produce  the  effect,  that  it  is  wholly  natural, 
and  that  it  ought  to  have  been  foreseen  that  it  would  produce 
exactly  such  consequences.  Those  must  have  looked  at  the 
surface  of  things  only,  as  it  seems  to  me,  who  thought  other- 
wise, and  who  expected  that  such  an  operation  could  be  gone 
through  with  without  producing  a  very  serious  shock. 

The  treasury  in  a  very  short  time  has  withdrawn  from  the 
bank  eight  millions  of  dollars,  within  a  fraction.  This  call,  of 
course,  the  bank  has  been  obliged  to  provide  for,  and  could  not 
provide  for  without  more  or  less  inconvenience  to  the  public. 
The  mere  withdrawal  of  so  large  a  sum  from  hands  actually 
holding  and  using  it,  and  the  transfer  of  it,  through  the  bank 
collecting,  and  through  another  bank  loaning  it,  if  it  can  loan  it, 
into  other  hands,  is  itself  an  operation  which,  if  conducted  sud- 
denly, must  produce  considerable  inconvenience.  And  this  is 
all  that  the  Secretary  seems  to  have  anticipated.  But  this  is 
but  the  smallest  part  of  the  whole  evil.  The  great  evil  arises 
from  the  new  attitude  in  which  the  government  places  itself 
towards  the  bank.  Every  thing  is  now  in  a  false  position. 
The  government,  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  the  State 
banks,  are  all  out  of  place.  They  are  deranged,  and  separated, 
and  jostling  against  each  other.  Instead  of  amity,  reliance,  and 
mutual  succor,  relations  of  jealousy,  of  distrust,  of  hostility  even, 
are  springing  up  between  these  parties.  All  act  on  the  defen- 
sive; each  looks  out  for  itself;  and  the  public  interest  is  crushed 
between  the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone.  All  this  should 
have  been  foreseen.  It  is  idle  to  say  that  these  evils  might  have 
been  prevented  by  the  bank,  if  it  had  exerted  itself  to  prevent 
Miem.  That  is  a  mere  matter  of  opinion :  it  may  be  true,  or  it 
43* 


510  THE   REMOVAL  OF    THE  DEPOSITS. 

may  not ;  but  it  was  the  business  of  those  who  proposed  the  re- 
moval of  the  deposits  to  ask  themselves  how  it  was  probable  the 
bank  would  act  when  they  should  attack  it,  assail  its  credit,  and 
allege  the  violation  by  it  of  its  charter;  and  thus  compel  it  to 
take  an  attitude,  at  least,  of  stern  defence.  The  community 
have  certainly  a  right  to  hold  those  answerable  who  have  unne- 
cessarily got  into  this  quarrel  with  the  bank,  and  thereby  occa- 
sioned the  evil,  let  the  conduct  of  the  bank,  in  the  course  of  the 
controversy,  be  what  it  may. 

In  my  opinion,  Sir,  the  great  source  of  the  evil  is  the  shock 
which  the  measure  has  given  to  confidence  in  the  commercial 
world.  The  credit  of  the  whole  system  of  the  currency  of  the 
country  seems  shaken.  The  State  banks  have  lost  credit  and 
lost  confidence.  They  have  suffered  vastly  more  than  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States  itself,  at  which  the  blow  was  aimed. 

The  derangement  of  internal  exchanges  is  one  of  the  most 
lisastrous  consequences  of  the  measure.  By  the  origin  of  its 
charter,  by  its  unquestioned  solidity,  by  the  fact  that  it  was  at 
home  everywhere  and  in  perfect  credit  everywhere,  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States  accomplished  the  internal  exchanges  of  the 
country  with  vast  facility,  and  at  a  rate  of  unprecedented  cheap- 
ness. The  State  banks  can  never  perform  this  equally  well ;  for 
the  reason  given  in  the  Boston  resolutions,  they  cannot  act  with 
the  same  concert,  the  same  identity  of  purpose.  Look  at  the 
prices  current,  and  see  the  change  in  the  value  of  the  notes  of 
distant  banks  in  the  great  cities.  Look  at  the  depression  of  the 
stocks  of  the  State  banks,  deposit  banks,  and  all.  Look  at 
what  must  happen  the  moment  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
in  its  process  of  winding  up,  or  to  meet  any  other  crisis,  shall 
cease  to  buy  domestic  bills,  especially  in  the  Southern,  South- 
western, and  Western  markets.  Can  any  man  doubt  what  will 
be  the  state  of  exchange  when  that  takes  place  ?  Or  can  any 
one  doubt  its  necessary  effect  upon  the  price  of  produce  ?  The 
bank  has  purchased  bills  to  the  amount  of  sixty  millions  a  year, 
as  appears  by  documents  heretofore  laid  before  the  Senate.  A 
great  portion  of  these,  no  doubt,  were  purchased  in  the  South 
and  West,  against  shipments  of  the  great  staples  of  thoso 
quarters  of  the  country.  Such  is  the  course  of  trade.  The 
produce  ot  the  Southwest  and  the  South  is  shipped  to  the 
North  and  Eas\  for  sale,  and  those  who  ship  it  draw  bills  on 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  5H 

those  to  whom  it  is  shipped ;  and  these  bills  are  bought  and 
discounted,  or  cashed  by  the  bank.  When  the  bank  shall  cease 
to  buy,  as  it  must  cease,  consequences  cannot  but  be  felt  much 
severer  even  than  those  now  experienced.  This  is  inevitable. 
But,  Sir,  I  go  no  farther  into  particular  statements.  My  opin- 
ion, I  repeat,  is,  that  the  present  distress  is  immediately  occa- 
sioned, beyond  all  doubt,  by  the  removal  of  the  deposits ;  and 
that  just  such  consequences  might  have  been,  and  ought  to  have 
been,  foreseen  from  that  measure,  as  we  do  now  perceive  and 
feel  around  us. 

Sir,  I  do  not  believe,  nevertheless,  that  these  consequences 
were  foreseen.  With  such  foresight,  the  deposits,  I  think,  would 
not  have  been  touched.  The  measure  has  operated  more  deeply 
and  more  widely  than  was  expected.  We  all  may  find  proof  of 
this  in  the  conversations  of  every  hour.  No  one,  who  seeks  to 
acquaint  himself  with  the  opinions  of  men,  in  and  out  of  Con- 
gress, can  doubt,  that,  if  the  act  were  now  proposed,  it  would 
receive  very  little  encouragement  or  support. 

Being  of  opinion  that  the  removal  of  the  deposits  has  pro- 
duced the  pressure  as  its  immediate  effect,  not  so  much  by  with- 
drawing a  large  sum  of  money  from  circulation,  as  by  alarming 
the  confidence  of  the  community,  by  breaking  in  on  the  well- 
adjusted  relations  of  the  government  and  the  bank,  I  agree 
again  with  the  Boston  resolutions,  that  the  natural  remedy  is  a 
restoration  of  the  relation  in  which  the  bank  has  heretofore 
stood  to  the  government.  I  agree,  Sir,  that  this  question  ought 
to  be  settled,  and  to  be  settled  soon.  And  yet,  if  it  be  decided 
that  the  present  state  of  things  shall  exist,  if  it  be  the  determi- 
nation of  Congress  to  do  nothing  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the 
unnatural,  distrustful,  half-belligerent  relation  between  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  bank.  I  do  not  look  for  any  great  relief  to  the 
community,  or  any  early  quieting  of  the  public  agitation.  On 
the  contrary,  I  expect  increased  difficulty  and  increased  disquiet. 

The  public  moneys  are  now  out  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States.  There  is  no  law  regulating  their  custody  or  fixing 
iheir  place.  They  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  to  be  kept  where  he  pleases,  as  he  pleases,  and  the 
places  of  their  custody  to  be  changed  as  often  as  he  pleases. 

I  do  not  think  that  this  is  a  state  of  things  in  which  the  coun- 
try is  likely  to  acquiesce. 


512  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

Mr.  President,  the  restoration  of  the  deposits  is  a  question  dis- 
tinct and  by  itself.  It  does  not  necessarily  involve  any  other 
question.  It  stands  clear  of  all  controversy  and  all  opinion 
about  rechartering  the  bank,  or  creating  any  new  bank.  I  wish, 
nevertheless,  Sir,  to  say  a  few  words  with  a  bearing  somewhat 
beyond  that  question.  Being  of  opinion  that  the  country  is  not 
likely  to  be  satisfied  with  the  present  state  of  things,  I  have 
looked  earnestly  for  the  suggestion  of  some  prospective  measure, 
some  system  to  be  adopted  as  the  future  policy  of  the  country. 
Where  are  the  public  moneys  hereafter  to  be  kept  ?  In  what 
currency  is  the  revenue  hereafter  to  be  collected  ?  What  is  to 
take  the  place  of  the  bank  in  our  general  system  ?  How  are  we 
to  preserve  a  uniform  currency,  a  uniform  measure  of  the  value 
of  property  and  the  value  of  labor,  a  uniform  medium  of  ex- 
change and  of  payments  ?  How  are  we  to  exercise  that  sa.iutary 
control  over  the  national  currency  which  it  was  the  unques- 
tionable purpose  of  the  Constitution  to  devolve  on  Congress? 
These,  Sir,  appear  to  me  to  be  the  momentous  questions  before 
us,  and  which  we  cannot  long  keep  out  of  view.  In  these  ques- 
tions, every  man  in  the  community  who  either  has  a  dollar,  or 
expects  to  earn  one,  has  a  direct  interest. 

Now,  Sir,  I  have  heard  but  four  suggestions,  or  opinions,  as  to 
what  may  hereafter  be  expected  or  attempted. 

The  first  is,  that  things  will  remain  as  they  are,  that  the  bank 
will  be  suffered  to  expire,  that  no  new  bank  will  be  created,  and 
the  whole  subject  be  left  under  the  control  of  the  executive  de- 
partment. 

I  have  already  said,  that  I  do  not  believe  the  country  will 
ever  acquiesce  in  this. 

The  second  suggestion  is  that  which  was  made  by  the  honor- 
able member  from  Virginia.*  That  honorable  member  pledges 
himself  to  bring  forward  a  proposition,  having  for  its  object  to  do 
away  with  the  paper  system  altogether,  and  to  return  to  an  ex- 
clusively metallic  currency.  I  do  not  think,  Sir,  that  he  will  find 
much  support  in  such  an  undertaking.  A  mere  gold  and  silver 
currency,  and  the  entire  abolition  of  paper,  are  not  suited  to  the 
times.  The  idea  has  something  a  little  too  antique,  too  Spartan, 
in  it ;  we  might  as  well  think  of  going  back  to  iron  at  once. 
If  such  a  result  as  the  gentleman  hopes  for  were  even  desira- 

*  Mr.  Rives. 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  513 

ble,  I  regard  its  attainment  as  utterly  impracticable  and  hope- 
less.    I  lay  that  scheme,  therefore,  out  of  my  contemplation. 

There  is,  then,  Sir,  the  rechartering  of  the  present  bank ;  and, 
lastly,  there  is  the  establishment  of  a  new  bank.  The  first  of 
these  received  the  sanction  of  the  last  Congress,  but  the  meas- 
ure was  negatived  by  the  President.  The  other,  the  creation  of 
a  new  bank,  has  not  been  brought  forward  in  Congress,  but  it 
has  excited  attention  out  of  doors,  and  has  been  proposed  in 
some  of  the  State  legislatures.  I  observe,  Sir,  that  a  proposition 
has  been  submitted  for  consideration,  by  a  very  intelligent  gen- 
tleman in  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  recommending  the 
establishment  of  a  new  bank,  with  the  following  provisions :  — 

"  1.  The  capital  stock  to  be  fifty  millions  of  dollars. 

"  2.  The  stockholders  of  the  present  United  States  Bank  to  be  per- 
mitted to  subscribe  an  amount  equal  to  the  stock  they  now  hold. 

"  3.  The  United  States  to  be  stockholders  to  the  same  extent  they  now 
are,  and  to  appoint  the  same  number  of  directors. 

"  4.  The  subscription  to  the  remaining  fifteen  millions  to  be  distribut- 
ed to  the  several  States  in  proportion  to  federal  numbers,  or  in  some 
other  just  and  equal  ratio  ;  the  instalments  payable  either  in  cash  or  in 
funded  stock  of  the  State,  bearing  interest  at  five  per  cent. 

"  5.  No  branch  of  the  bank  to  be  established  in  any  State,  unless  by 
permission  of  its  legislature. 

"  6.  The  branches  of  the  bank  established  in  the  several  States  to  be 
liable  to  taxation  by  those  States,  respectively,  in  the  same  manner  and 
to  the  same  extent  only  with  their  own  banks. 

"  7.  Such  States  as  may  become  subscribers  to  the  stock  to  have  the 
right  of  appointing  a  certain  number,  not  exceeding  one  third,  of  the  di- 
rectors in  the  branch  of  their  own  State. 

"  8.  Stock  not  subscribed  for  under  the  foregoing  provisions  to  be 
open  to  subscription  by  individual  citizens." 

A  project  not  altogether  dissimilar  has  been  started  in  the 
legislature  of  Pennsylvania.  These  proceedings  show,  at  least, 
a  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  some  bank  created  by  Congress. 
Mr.  President,  on  this  subject  I  have  no  doubt  whatever.  I 
think  a  national  bank  proper  and  necessary.  I  believe  it  to  be 
the  only  practicable  remedy  for  the  evils  we  feel,  and  the  only 
effectual  security  against  the  greater  evils  which  we  fear.  Not, 
Sir,  that  there  is  any  magic  in  the  name  of  a  bank ;  nor  that  a 
national  bank  works  by  any  miracle  or  mystery.  But,  looking 


514  THE  REMOVAL  OF   THE  DEPOSITS. 

to  the  state  of  things  actually  existing  around  us,  looking  to  the 
great  number  of  State  banks  already  created,  not  less  than 
three  hundred  and  fifty  or  four  hundred,  looking  to  the  vast 
amount  of  paper  issued  by  those  banks,  and  considering  that,  in 
the  very  nature  of  things,  this  paper  must  be  limited  and  local 
in  its  credit  and  in  its  circulation,  I  confess  I  see  nothing  but 
a  well-conducted  national  institution  which  is  likely  to  afford 
any  guard  against  excessive  paper  issues,  or  which  can  furnish 
a  sound  and  uniform  currency  to  every  part  of  the  United 
States.  This,  Sir,  is  not  only  a  question  of  finance,  it  not  only 
respects  the  operations  of  the  treasury,  but  it  rises  to  the  char- 
acter of  a  high  political  question.  It  respects  the  currency,  the 
actual  money,  the  measure  of  value  of  all  property  and  all  labor 
in  the  United  States.  If  we  needed  not  a  dollar  of  money  in  the 
treasury,  it  would  still  be  our  solemn  and  bounden  duty  to  pro- 
tect this  great  interest.  It  respects  the  exercise  of  one  of  the 
greatest  powers,  beyond  all  doubt,  conferred  on  Congress  by  the 
Constitution.  And  I  hardly  know  any  thing  less  consistent  with 
our  public  duty  and  our  high  trust,  nor  any  thing  more  likely  to 
disturb  the  harmonious  relations  of  the  States,  in  all  affairs  of 
business  and  life,  than  for  Congress  to  abandon  all  care  and 
control  over  die  currency,  and  to  throw  the  whole  money  sys- 
tem of  the  country  into  the  hands  of  four-and-twenty  State 
legislatures. 

I  am,  then,  Sir,  for  a  bank ;  and  am  fully  persuaded  that  to 
that  measure  the  country  must  come  at  last. 

The  question,  then,  is  between  the  creation  of  a  new  bank, 
and  the  rechartering  of  the  present  bank,  with  modifications. 
I  have  already  referred  to  the  scheme  for  a  new  bank,  proposed 
to  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  by  Mr.  White.  Between 
such  a  new  bank  as  his  propositi6ns  would  create,  and  a  rechar- 
tering of  the  present  bank,  with  modifications,  there  is  no  very 
wide,  certainly  no  irreconcilable  difference.  We  cannot,  how- 
ler, create  another  bank  before  March,  1836.  This  is  one  rea- 
son for  preferring  a  continuance  of  the  present.  And,  treating 
the  subject  as  a  practical  question,  and  looking  to  the  state  of 
opinion,  and  to  the  probability  of  success  in  either  attempt,  I  in- 
cline to  the  opinion  that  the  true  course  of  policy  is  to  propose 
a  recharter  of  the  present  bank,  with  modifications. 

As  to  what  these  modifications  should  be,  I  would  only  now 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.        ;,lfi 

observe,  that,  while  it  may  well  be  inferred,  from  my  known  sen- 
timents, that  I  should  not  myself  deem  any  alterations  in  tne 
charter  beyond  those  proposed  by  the  bill  of  1832  highly  essen- 
tial, yet  it  is  a  case  in  which,  I  am  aware,  nothing  can  be  effected 
for  the  good  of  the  country  without  making  some  approaches  to 
unity  of  opinion.  I  think,  therefore,  that,  in  the  hope  of  accom- 
plishing an  object  of  so  much  importance,  liberal  concessions 
should  be  made.  I  lay  out  of  the  case  all  consideration  of  any 
especial  claim,  or  any  legal  right,  of  the  present  stockholders  to 
a  renewal  of  their  charter.  No  such  right  can  be  pretended ; 
doubtless  none  such  is  pretended.  The  stockholders  must  stand 
like  other  individuals,  and  their  interest  must  be  regarded  so  far, 
and  so  far  only,  as  may  be  judged  for  the  public  good.  Mod- 
ifications of  the  present  charter  should,  I  think,  be  proposed,  such 
as  may  remove  all  reasonable  grounds  of  jealousy  in  all  quar- 
ters, whether  in  States,  in  other  institutions,  or  in  individuals; 
such,  too,  as  may  tend  to  reconcile  the  interests  of  the  great  city 
where  the  bank  is  with  those  of  another  great  city;  and,  in  short, 
the  question  should  be  met  with  a  sincere  disposition  to  accom- 
plish, by  united  and  friendly  counsels,  a  measure  which  shall 
allay  fears  and  promote  confidence,  at  the  same  time  that  it  se- 
cures to  the  country  a  sound,  creditable,  uniform  currency,  and 
to  the  government  a  safe  deposit  for  the  public  treasure,  and  an 
important  auxiliary  in  its  financial  operations. 

I  repeat,  then,  Sir,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  renewing  the  charter 
of  the  present  bank,  with  such  alterations  as  may  be  expected  to 
meet  the  general  sense  of  the  country. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  to  avoid  all  unfounded  inferences,  I 
wish  to  say,  that  these  suggestions  are  to  be  regarded  as  wholly 
my  own.  They  are  made  without  the  knowledge  of  the  bank, 
and  with  no  understanding  or  concert  with  any  of  its  friends.  I 
have  not  understood,  indeed,  that  the  bank  itself  proposes  to  ap- 
ply, at  present,  for  a  renewal  of  its  charter.  Whether  it  does  so 
or  not,  my  suggestions  are  connected  with  no  such  purpose  of 
the  bank,  nor  with  any  other  purpose  which  it  may  be  supposed 
to  entertain.  I  take  up  the  subject  on  public  grounds,  purely 
and  exclusively. 

And,  Sir,  in  order  to  repel  all  inferences  of  another  sort,  1  wish 
to  state,  with  equal  distinctness,  that  I  do  not  undertake,to  speak 
the  sentiments  of  any  individual  heretofore  opposed  to  the  bank, 


516  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

or  belonging  to  that  class  of  public  men  who  have  generally  op- 
posed it.  I  state  my  own  opinions ;  if  others  should  concur  in 
them,  it  will  be  only  because  they  approve  them,  and  will  not  be 
the  result  of  any  previous  concert  or  understanding  whatever. 

Finally,  Mr.  President,  having  stated  my  own  opinions,  I  re- 
spectfully ask  those  who  propose  to  continue  the  discussion  now 
going  on,  relative  to  the  deposits,  to  let  the  country  see  their 
plan  for  the  final  settlement  of  the  present  difficulties.  If  they 
are  against  the  bank,  and  against  all  banks,  what  do  they  pro- 
pose ?  That  the  country  will  not  be  satisfied  with  the  present 
state  of  things,  seems  to  be  certain.  What  state  of  things  is  to 
succeed  it?  To  these  questions  I  desire  earnestly  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  country.  The  occasion  is 
critical,  the  interests  at  stake  momentous,  and,  in  my  judgment, 
Congress  ought  not  to  adjourn  till  it  shall  have  passed  some  law 
suitable  to  the  exigency,  and  satisfactory  to  the  country. 


ON  the  30th  day  of  January,  Mr.  Wright,  of  New  York,  presented 
to  the  Senate  sundry  resolutions,  passed  by  the  legislature  of  New 
York,  approving  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  and  disapproving  of  any 
Bank  of  the  United  Slates. 

In  presenting  these  resolutions,  Mr.  Wright,  among  other  observations, 
expressed  his  decided  hostility  to  the  renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  pres- 
ent bank,  or  the  creation  of  any  other.  He  said  that  he  would  oppose 
this  bank  upon  the  ground  of  its  flagrant  violations  of  the  high  trusts 
confided  to  it,  but  that  his  objections  were  of  a  still  deeper  and  graver 
character ;  that  he  went  against  this  bank,  and  against  any  and  every 
bank  to  be  incorporated  by  Congress,  to  be  located  anywhere  within  the 
twenty-four  States.  He  expressed  a  strong  opinion,  too,  that  the  exist- 
•ng  distress  arose  from  the  conduct  of  the  bank  in  curtailing  its  loans ; 
and  that  this  curtailment  had  been  made  with  a  view  to  extort  a  renewal 
of  its  charter  from  the  fears  of  the  people. 

As  to  what  was  to  be  done,  under  present  circumstances,  in  order  to 
relieve  the  public  pressure,  Mr.  Wright  said,  that,  speaking  for  himself 
qnly,  he  would  sustain  the  executive  branch  of  the  government,  by  all 
the  legal  means  in  his  power,  in  the  effort  now  making  to  substitute  the 
State  banks,  instead  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  as  the  fiscal  agent 
of  the  government. 

When  Mr.  Wright  had  concluded  his  remarks,  Mr.  Webster  said  •  — 


THE  REMOVAL  OF   THE  DEPOSITS.  517 

I  cannot  consent  to  let  the  opportunity  pass,  without  a  few 
observations  upon  what  we  have  now  heard.  Sir,  the  remarks 
of  the  honorable  member  from  New  York  are  full  of  the  most 
portentous  import.  They  are  words,  not  of  cheering  or  con- 
solation, but  of  ill-boding  signification ;  and,  as  they  spread  far 
and  wide,  in  their  progress  from  the  capital  through  the  country, 
they  will  carry  with  them,  if  I  mistake  not,  gloom,  apprehen- 
sion, and  dismay.  I  consider  the  declarations  which  the  honor- 
able member  has  now  made,  as  expressing  the  settled  purpose 
of  the  administration  on  the  great  question  which  so  much  agi- 
tates the  country. 

Here  Mr.  Wright  rose,  and  said  that  he  had  given  his  opinion  as  aa 
individual,  and  that  he  had  no  authority  to  speak  for  the  administration. 
Mr.  Webster  continued  :  — 

I  perfectly  well  understand,  Sir,  all  the  gentleman's  disclaim- 
ers and  demurrers.  He  speaks,  to  be  sure,  in  his  own  name 
only ;  but,  from  his  political  connections,  his  station,  and  his  re- 
lations, I  know  full  well  that  he  has  not,  on  this  occasion,  spoken 
one  word  which  has  not  been  deliberately  weighed  and  consid- 
ered by  others  as  well  as  himself. 

He  has  announced,  therefore,  to  the  country,  two  things  clearly 
and  intelligibly:  — 

First,  that  the  present  system  (if  system  it  is  to  be  called)  is 
to  remain  unaltered.  The  public  moneys  are  to  remain,  as  they 
now  are,  in  the  State  banks,  and  the  whole  public  revenue  is 
hereafter  to  be  collected  through  the  agency  of  such  bank?. 
This  is  the  first  point.  The  gentleman  has  declared  his  full 
and  fixed  intention  to  support  the  administration  in  this  course, 
and  therefore  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  course  has  been 
determined  on  by  the  administration.  No  plan  is  to  be  laid  be- 
fore Congress ;  no  system  is  to  be  adopted  by  authority  of  law. 
The  effect  of  a  law  would  be  to  place  the  public  deposits  beyond 
the  power  of  daily  change,  and  beyond  the  absolute  control  of 
the  executive.  But  no  such  fixed  arrangement  is  to  take  place. 
The  whole  is  to  be  left  completely  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  who  may  change  the  public  moneys  from 
place  to  place,  and  from  bank  to  bank,  as  often  as  he  pleases. 

The  second  thing  now  clearly  made  known,  and  of  which,  in- 
deed, there  have  been  many  previous  intimations,  is,  Sir,  that  a 

VOL.  in.  44 


518  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

great  effort  is  to  be  made,  or  rather  an  effort  already  made  is  to 
be  vigorously  renewed  and  continued,  to  turn  the  public  corn- 
plaints  against  the  bank  instead  of  the  government,  and  to 
persuade  the  people  that  all  their  sufferings  arise,  not  from  the 
act  of  the  administration  in  removing  the  public  deposits,  but 
from  the  conduct  of  the  bank  since  that  was  done.  It  is  to  be 
asserted  here,  and  will  be  the  topic  of  declamation  everywhere, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  if  the  bank 
had  not  acted  wrong,  there  would  have  been  no  pressure  or 
distress  on  the  country.  The  object,  it  is  evident,  will  now  be 
to  divert  public  attention  from  the  conduct  of  the  Secretary,  and 
fix  it  on  that  of  the  bank.  This  is  the  second  thing  which  is  to 
be  learned  from  the  speech  of  the  member  from  New  York. 

The  honorable  member  has  said  that  new  honors  are  to  be 
gained  by  the  President,  from  the  act  which  he  is  about  to  ac- 
complish ;  that  he  is  to  bring  back  legislation  to  its  original  lim- 
its, and  to  establish  the  great  truth,  that  Congress  has  no  power 
to  create  a  national  bank.  I  shall  not  stop  to  argue  whether 
Congress  can  charter  a  bank  in  this  little  District,  which  shall 
operate  everywhere  throughout  the  Union,  and  yet  cannot  es- 
tablish one  in  any  of  the  States.  The  gentleman  seemed  to 
leave  that  point,  as  if  Congress  had  such  a  power.  But  all  must 
see  that,  if  Congress  cannot  establish  a  bank  in  one  of  the  States, 
with  branches  in  the  rest,  it  would  be  mere  evasion  to  say  that  it 
might  establish  a  bank  here,  with  branches  in  the  several  States. 

Congress,  it  is  alleged,  has  not  the  constitutional  power  to 
create  a  bank.  Sir,  on  what  does  this  power  rest,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  those  of  us  who  maintain  it?  Simply  on  this;  that  it  is 
a  power  which  is  necessary  and  proper  for  the  purpose  of  carry- 
ing other  powers  into  effect.  A  fiscal  agent,  an  auxiliary  to  the 
treasury,  a  machine,  a  something,  is  necessary  for  the  purposes 
of  the  government;  and  Congress,  under  the  general  authority 
conferred  upon  it,  can  create  that  fiscal  agent,  that  machine, 
that  something,  and  call  it  a  bank.  This  is  what  I  contend  for; 
but  this  the  gentleman  denies,  and  says  that  it  is  not  competent 
to  Congress  to  create  a  fiscal  agent  for  itself,  but  that  it  may 
employ  as  such  agents  institutions  not  created  by  itself,  but  by 
others,  and  which  are  beyond  the  control  of  Congress.  It  is 
admitted  that  the  agent  is  necessary,  and  that  Congress  has  tne 
oower  to  employ  it ;  but  it  is  insisted,  nevertheless,  that  Con- 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  519 

gress  cannot  create  it,  but  must  take  such  as  is  or  may  be  already 
created.  I  do  not  agree  to  the  soundness  of  this  reasoning.  Sup- 
pose there  were  no  State  banks ;  as  the  gentleman  admits  the 
necessity  of  a  bank  in  that  case,  how  can  he  hold  such  discordant 
opinions  as  to  assert  that  Congress  could  not,  in  that  case,  cre- 
ate one  ?  The  agency  of  a  bank  is  necessary  ;  and,  because  it 
is  necessary,  we  may  use  it,  provided  others  will  make  a  bank 
for  us ;  but  if  they  will  not,  we  cannot  make  one  for  ourselves, 
however  necessary!  This  is  the  proposition. 

For  myself,  I  must  confess  that  I  am  too  obtuse  to  see  the 
distinction  between  the  power  of  creating  a  bank  for  the  use  of 
the  government,  and  the  power  of  taking  into  its  use  banks 
already  created.  To  make  and  to  use,  or  to  make  and  to  hire, 
must  require  the  same  power  in  this  case,  and  be  either  both 
constitutional  or  both  equally  unconstitutional;  except  that 
every  consideration  of  propriety  and  expediency  and  conven- 
ience requires  that  Congress  should  make  a  bank  which  will 
suit  its  own  purposes,  answer  its  own  ends,  and  be  subject  to 
its  own  control,  rather  than  use  other  banks,  which  were  not 
created  for  any  such  purpose,  are  not  suited  to  it,  and  over  which 
Congress  can  exercise  no  supervision. 

On  one  or  two  other  points,  Sir,  I  wish  to  say  a  word.  The 
gentleman  differs  from  me  as  to  the  degree  of  pressure  on  the 
country.  He  admits  that,  in  some  parts,  there  is  some  degree 
of  pressure ;  in  large  cities,  he  supposes  there  may  be  distress ; 
but  he  asserts  that  everywhere  else  the  pressure  is  limited  ;  that 
everywhere  it  is  greatly  exaggerated ;  and  that  it  will  soon  be 
over.  This  is  mere  matter  of  opinion.  It  is  capable  of  no  pre- 
cise and  absolute  proof  or  disproof.  The  avenues  of  knowledge 
are  equally  open  to  all.  But  I  can  truly  say,  that  I  differ  from 
the  gentleman  on  this  point  most  materially  and  most  widely. 
From  the  information  I  have  received  during  the  last  few  weeks, 
I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  pressure  is  very  severe, 
has  become  very  general,  and  is  fast  increasing ;  and  I  see  no 
chance  of  its  diminution,  unless  measures  of  relief  shall  be 
adopted  by  the  government. 

But  the  gentleman  has  discovered,  or  thinks  he  has  discov- 
ered, motives  for  the  complaints  which  arise  on  all  sides.  It  is 
all  but  an  attempt  to  bring  the  administration  into  disfavor. 
This  alone  is  the  reason  why  the  removal  of  the  deposits  is  so 


520  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

strongly  censured !  Sir,  the  gentleman  is  mistaken.  He  doe* 
not,  at  least  I  think  he  does  not,  rightly  interpret  the  signs 
of  the  times.  The  cause  of  complaint  is  much  deeper  and 
stronger  than  any  mere  desire  to  produce  political  effect.  The 
gentleman  must  be  aware,  that,  notwithstanding  the  great  vote 
by  which  the  New  York  resolutions  were  carried,  and  the  sup- 
port given  by  other  proceedings  to  the  removal  of  the  deposits, 
there  are  many  as  ardent  friends  of  the  President  as  are  to  be 
found  anywhere  who  exceedingly  regret  and  deploie  the  meas- 
ure. Sir,  on  this  floor  there  has  been  going  on  for  many 
weeks  as  interesting  a  debate  as  has  been  witnessed  for  twenty 
years ;  and  yet  I  have  not  heard,  among  all  who  have  supported 
the  administration,  a  single  Senator  say  that  he  approved  the 
removal  of  the  deposits,  or  was  glad  it  had  taken  place,  until  the 
gentleman  from  New  York  spoke.  I  saw  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  approach  that  point;  but  he  shunned  direct  contact. 
He  complained  much  of  the  bank;  he  insisted,  too,  on  the 
power  of  removal ;  but  I  did  not  hear  him  say  he  thought  it  a 
wise  act.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia,  not  now  in  his  seat, 
also  defended  the  power,  and  has  arraigned  the  bank ;  but  has 
he  said  that  he  approved  the  measure  of  removal  ?  I  have  not 
met  with  twenty  individuals,  in  or  out  of  Congress,  who  have 
expressed  an  approval  of  it,  among  the  many  hundreds  whose 
opinions  I  have  heard,  —  not  twenty  who  have  maintained  that 
it  was  a  wise  proceeding;  but  I  have  heard  individuals  of  ample 
fortune,  although  they  wholly  disapproved  the  measure,  declare, 
nevertheless,  that,  since  it  was  adopted,  they  would  sacrifice  all 
they  possessed  rather  than  not  support  it.  Such  is  the  warmth 
of  party  zeal. 

Sir,  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  present  agitation  of  the 
country  springs  from  mere  party  motives.  It  is  a  great  mistake. 
Every  body  is  not  a  politician.  The  mind  of  every  man  in  the 
country  is  not  occupied  with  the  project  of  subverting  one  ad- 
ministration, and  setting  up  another.  The  gentleman  has  done 
great  injustice  to  the  people.  I  know,  Sir,  that  great  injustice 
has  been  done  to  the  memorialists  from  Boston,  whose  resolu- 
tions I  presented  some  days  since,  some  of  whom  are  very  ar- 
dent friends  of  the  President,  and  can  have  been  influenced  by 
no  such  motive  as  has  been  attributed  to  them. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  think  I  heard  yesterday  something  from 


THE   REMOVAL   OF   THE  DEPOSITS.  521 

the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  indicative  of  an  intention  tc 
direct  the  hostility  of  the  country  against  the  bank,  and  to  as- 
cribe to  the  bank  alone  the  existing  public  distress.  But  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  government  to  have  foreseen  the  consequences 
of  the  removal  of  the  deposits ;  and  gentlemen  have  no  right 
first  to  attack  the  bank,  charge  it  with  great  offences,  and  thus 
attempt  to  shake  its  credit,  and  then  complain  when  the  bank 
undertakes  to  defend  itself,  and  to  avoid  the  great  risk  which 
must  threaten  it  from  the  hostility  of  the  government  to  its  prop- 
erty and  character.  The  government  has  placed  itself  in  an  ex- 
traordinary relation,  not  only  toward  the  banks,  but  toward  the 
business  and  currency  of  the  country,  by  the  removal  of  the  depos- 
its. The  bills  of  the  bank  are  lawful  currency  in  all  payments 
to  government;  yet  we  see  the  executive  warring  on  the  credit 
of  this  national  currency.  We  have  seen  the  institution  as- 
sailed, which,  by  law,  was  provided  to  supply  the  revenue.  Is 
not  this  a  new  course  ?  Does  the  recollection  of  the  gentleman 
furnish  any  such  instance  ?  What  other  institution  could  stand 
against  such  hostility?  The  Bank  of  England  could  not  stand 
against  it  a  single  hour.  The  Bank  of  France  would  perish  at 
the  first  breath  of  such  hostility.  But  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  has  sustained  its  credit  under  every  disadvantage,  and 
has  ample  means  to  sustain  it  to  the  end.  Its  credit  is  in  no 
degree  shaken,  though*  its  operations  are  necessarily  curtailed. 
What  has  the  bank  done  ?  The  gentleman  from  New  York 
and  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  have  alleged  that  it  is  not 
because  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits  that  there  is  pressure  in 
the  country,  but  because  of  the  conduct  of  the  bank.  The  latter 
gentleman,  especially,  alleges  that  the  bank  began  to  curtail  its 
discounts  before  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  and  at  a  time  when 
it  was  only  expected  that  they  would  be  removed.  Indeed !  and 
did  not  the  bank,  by  taking  this  course,  prove  that  it  foresaw 
correctly  what  was  to  take  place  ?  and  because  it  adopted  a 
course  of  preparation,  in  order  to  break  the  blow  which  was 
about  to  fall  upon  it,  this  also  is  to  be  added  to  the  grave  cata- 
logue of  its  offences.  The  bank,  it  seems,  has  curtailed  to  the 
amount  of  nine  millions.  Has  she,  indeed  ?  And  is  not  that 
exactly  the  amount  of  deposits  which  the  government  has  with- 
drawn ?  The  bank,  then,  has  curtailed  precisely  so  much  as  the 
government  has  drawn  away  from  it.  No  other  bank  in  the 
44* 


522  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

world  could  have  gone  on  with  so  small  a  curtailment.  While 
public  confidence  was  diminishing  all  around  the  bank,  it  onl^, 
curtailed  just  as  much  as  it  lost  by  the  act  of  the  government. 
The  bank  would  be  justified,  even  without  the  withdrawal  of 
the  deposits,  in  curtailing  its  discounts  gradually,  and  continu- 
ing to  do  so  to  the  end  of  its  charter,  considering  the  hostility 
manifested  to  its  further  continuance.  The  government  has 
refused  to  recharter  it.  Its  term  of  existence  is  approaching: 
one  of  the  duties  which  it  has  to  perform  is  to  make  its  collec- 
tions ;  and  the  process  of  collection,  since  it  must  be  slow,  ought 
to  be  commenced  in  season.  It  is,  therefore,  its  duty  to  begin 
its  curtailments,  so  that  the  process  may  be  gradual. 

I  hope  that  I  have  not  been  misunderstood  in  my  remarks  the 
other  morning.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  has  represent- 
ed me  as  saying,  that  it  is  not  the  removal  of  the  deposits  which 
has  caused  the  public  distress.  What  I  said  was,  that  if  the 
government  had  required  twice  nine  millions  for  its  service,  the 
withdrawal  of  that  amount  from  the  bank,  without  any  inter- 
ruption of  the  good  understanding  between  the  government  and 
the  bank,  would  not  have  caused  this  pressure  and  distrust. 
Every  thing  turns  on  the  circumstances  under  which  the  with- 
drawal is  made.  If  public  confidence  is  not  shaken,  all  is  well ; 
but  if  it  is,  all,  all  is  difficulty  and  distress.  And  this  confidence 
is  shaken. 

It  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  that  gov- 
ernment has  no  design  against  the  bank ;  that  it  only  desires  to 
withdraw  the  public  deposits.  Yet,  in  the  very  paper  submit- 
ted to  Congress  by  the  executive  department,  the  bank  is  ar- 
raigned as  unconstitutional  in  its  very  origin,  and  also  as  having 
broken  its  charter  and  violated  its  obligations,  and  its  very  ex- 
istence is  said  to  be  dangerous  to  the  country !  Is  not  all  this 
calculated  to  injure  the  character  of  the  bank,  and  to  shake  con- 
fidence ?  The  bank  has  its  foreign  connections,  and  is  much 
engaged  in  the  business  of  foreign  exchanges ;  and  what  will  be 
thought  at  Paris  and  London,  when  the  community  there  shall 
see  all  these  charges  made  by  the  government  against  a  baint  in 
which  they  have  always  reposed  the  highest  trust  ?  Does  not 
this  injure  its  reputation  ?  Does  it  not  compel  it  to  take  a  de- 
fensive attitude  ?  The  gentleman  from  New  York  spoke  of  the 
power  in  the  country  to  put  down  the  bank,  and  of  doing  as  our 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  523 

fathers  did  in  the  time  of  the  Revolution,  and  has  called  on  the 
people  to  rise  and  put  down  this  money  power,  as  our  ancestors 
put  down  the  oppressive  rule  of  Great  Britain !  All  this  is  well 
calculated  to  produce  the  effect  which  is  intended ;  and  all  this, 
too,  helps  further  to  shake  confidence.  It  all  injures  the  bank,  it 
all  compels  it  to  curtail  more  and  more. 

Sir,  I  venture  to  predict  that  the  longer  gentlemen  pursue  the 
experiment  which  they  have  devised,  of  collecting  the  public 
revenue  by  State  banks,  the  more  perfectly  will  they  be  satisfied 
that  it  cannot  succeed.  The  gentleman  has  suffered  himself  to 
be  led  away  by  false  analogies.  He  says,  that  when  the  present 
bank  expires,  there  will  be  the  same  laws  in  existence  as  when  the 
old  bank  expired.  Now,  would  it  not  be  the  inference  of  every 
wise  man,  that  there  will  also  be  the  same  inconveniences  as  were 
then  felt  ?  It  would  be  useful  to  remember  the  state  of  things 
which  existed  when  the  first  bank  was  created,  in  1791 ;  and 
that  a  high  degree  of  convenience,  which  amounted  to  political 
necessity,  compelled  Congress  thus  early  to  create  a  national 
bank.  Its  charter  expired  in  1811,  and  the  war  came  on  the 
next  year.  The  State  banks  immediately  stopped  payment ; 
and,  before  the  war  had  continued  twelve  months,  there  was  a 
proposition  for  another  United  States  Bank ;  and  this  proposal 
was  renewed  from  year  to  year,  and  from  session  to  session. 
Who  supported  this  proposition  ?  The  very  individuals  who 
had  opposed  the  former  bank,  and  who  had  now  become  con- 
vinced of  the  indispensable  necessity  of  such  an  institution.  It 
has  been  verified  by  experience,  that  the  bank  is  as  necessary  in 
time  of  peace  as  in  time  of  war;  and  perhaps  more  necessary, 
for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  commercial  operations  of  the 
country,  collecting  the  revenue,  and  sustaining  the  currency.  It 
has  been  alleged,  that  we  are  to  be  left  in  the  same  condition 
as  when  the  old  bank  expired,  and,  of  course,  we  are  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  same  inconveniences.  Sir,  why  should  we  thus 
suffer  all  experience  to  be  lost  upon  us  ?  For  the  convenience 
of  the  government  and  of  the  country,  there  must  be  some  bank, 
at  least  I  think  so;  and  I  should  wish  to  hear  the  views  of  trc 
administration  as  to  this  point. 

The  notes  and  bills  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  have 
heretofore  been  circulated  everywhere ;  they  meet  the  wants  of 
every  one ;  they  have  furnished  a  safe  and  most  convenient  cur- 


524  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

rency.  It  is  impossible  for  Congress  by  enactment  to  confer  a 
certain  value  on  the  paper  of  the  State  banks.  They  may  say 
that  these  banks  are  entitled  to  credit ;  but  they  cannot  legislate 
them  into  the  good  opinion  and  faith  of  the  public.  Credit  is  a 
thing  which  must  take  its  own  course.  It  can  never  happen 
that  the  New  York  notes  will  be  at  par  value  in  Louisiana,  or 
that  the  notes  of  the  Louisiana  banks  will  be  at  par  value  in 
New  York.  In  the  notes  of  the  United  States  Bank  we  have  a 
currency  of  equal  value  everywhere ;  and  I  say  that  there  is  not 
to  be  found,  in  the  whole  world,  another  institution  whose  notes 
spread  so  far  and  wide,  with  perfect  credit  in  all  places.  There 
is  no  instance  of  a  bank  whose  paper  is  spread  over  so  vast  a 
surface  of  country,  and  is  everywhere  of  such  equal  value.  How 
can  it  be,  that  a  number  of  State  banks,  scattered  over  two 
thousand  miles  of  country,  subject  to  twenty-four  different  State 
legislatures  and  State  tribunals,  without  the  possibility  of  any 
general  concert  of  action,  can  supply  the  place  of  one  general 
bank  ?  It  cannot  be.  I  see,  Sir,  in  the  doctrines  which  have 
been  advanced  to-day,  only  new  distress  and  disaster,  new  inse- 
curity, and  more  danger  to  property  than  the  country  has  expe- 
rienced for  many  years ;  because  it  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  up- 
hold the  occupations  of  industry,  unless  property  is  made  secure; 
or  the  value  of  labor,  unless  its  recompense  is  safe.  But  an 
opportunity  will  occur  for  resuming  this  subject  hereafter.  I 
forbear  to  dwell  upon  it  at  present. 

A  word  or  two  on  one  other  point.  It  was  said  by  me,  on  a 
former  day,  that  this  immediate  question  of  the  deposits  does 
not  necessarily  draw  after  it  the  question  of  rechartering  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States.  It  leaves  that  question  for  future 
adjustment.  Bat  the  present  question  involves  high  political 
considerations,  which  I  am  not  now  about  to  discuss.  If  the 
question  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits  be  not  now  taken  into 
view,  gentlemen  will  be  bound  to  vote  on  the  resolutions  of  the 
Senator  from  Kentucky,*  as  to  the  power  which  has  been  claimed 
and  exercised.  The  question,  then,  is  not  as  to  the  renewing  of 
the  charter  of  the  bank.  But  I  repeat,  that,  however  gentlemen 
may  flatter  themselves,  if  it  be  not  settled  that  the  deposits  are 
to  be  restored,  nothing  will  be  settled ;  negative  resolutions  will 

Mr.  Clay. 


THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE    DEPOSITS.  505 

not  tranquillize  the  country  and  give  it  repose.  The  question  is 
before  the  country;  all  agree  that  it  must  be  settled  by  that  coun- 
try. I  very  much  regret  that  topics  are  mixed  up  with  the  ques- 
tion which  may  prevent  it  from  being  submitted  to  the  calm 
judgment  of  the  people.  Yet  I  have  not  lost  faith  in  public  sen- 
timent. Events  are  occurring  daily,  which  will  make  the  people 
think  for  themselves.  The  industrious,  the  enterprising,  will  see 
the  danger  which  surrounds  them,  and  will  awake.  If  the  ma- 
jority of  the  people  shall  then  say  there  is  no  necessity  for  a  con- 
tinuance of  this  sound  and  universal  currency,  I  will  acquiesce 
in  their  judgment,  because  I  can  do  no  otherwise  than  acquiesce. 
If  the  gentleman  from  New  York  is  right  in  his  reading  of  the 
prognostics,  and  public  opinion  shall  settle  down  in  the  way 
which  he  desires ;  and  if  it  be  determined  here  that  the  public 
money  is  to  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  executive,  with 
absolute  power  over  the  whole  subject  of  its  custody  and  guar- 
dianship, and  that  the  general  currency  is  to  be  left  to  the  con- 
trol of  banks  created  by  twenty-four  States;  —  then  I  say,  that, 
in  my  judgment,  one  strong  bond  of  our  social  and  political 
Union  is  severed,  and  one  great  pillar  of  our  prosperity  is  broken 
and  prostrate. 

Mr.  Tallmadge  of  New  York  spoke  in  reply  to  Mr.  Webster,  and  de- 
nied the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  create  a  bank,  although  he 
maintained  the  power  of  the  Secretary  to  make  use  of  the  State  banks. 

The  subject  being  resumed  the  next  day,  January  31,  Mr.  Webster 
said  :  — 

It  is  not  to  be  denied,  Sir,  that  the  financial  affairs  of  the 
country  have  come,  at  last,  to  such  a  state,  that  every  man  can 
see  plainly  the  question  which  is  presented  for  the  decision  of 
Congress.  We  have,  unquestionably,  before  us,  now,  the  views 
of  the  executive,  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  evils  alleged 
to  exist;  and  its  notions,  also,  as  to  the  proper  remedy  for  such 
evils.  That  remedy  is  short.  It  is,  simply,  the  system  of  ad- 
ministration already  adopted  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  which  is  nothing  but  this,  that,  whenever  he  shall  think 
proper  to  remove  the  public  moneys  from  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States,  and  place  them  wherever  else  he  pleases,  this  act  shall 
stand  as  the  settled  policy  and  system  of  the  country ;  and  this 
system  shall  rest  upon  the  authority  of  the  executive  alone. 


526  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

This  is  now  to  be  our  future  policy,  as  I  understand  the  grave, 
significant  import  of  the  remarks  made  yesterday  by  the  gentle- 
man from  New  York,  and  as  I  perceive  they  are  generally  un- 
derstood, and  as  they  are  evidently  understood  by  the  gentleman 
from  Mississippi,*  who  has  alluded  to  them  on  presenting  his 
resolutions  this  morning.  I  wish,  Sir,  to  take  this,  the  earliest 
opportunity,  of  stating  my  opinions  upon  this  subject ;  and  that 
opinion  is,  that  the  remedy  proposed  by  the  administration  for 
the  evils  under  which  the  country  is  at  this  time  suffering  can- 
not bring  relief,  will  not  give  satisfaction,  and  cannot  be  acqui- 
esced in.  I  think  the  country,  on  the  other  hand,  will  show 
much  dissatisfaction ;  and  that  from  no  motive  of  hostility  to 
the  government,  from  no  disposition  to  make  the  currency  of  the 
country  turn  upon  political  events,  or  to  make  political  events 
turn  upon  the  question  of  the  currency ;  but  simply  because,  in 
my  judgment,  the  system  is  radically  defective,  totally  insuffi- 
cient, carrying  with  it  little  confidence  of  the  public,  and  none 
at  all  beyond  what  it  acquires  merely  by  the  influence  of  the 
name  which  recommends  it. 

I  do  not  intend  now,  Mr.  President,  to  go  into  a  regular  and 
formal  argument  to  prove  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress 
to  establish  a  national  bank.  That,  question  has  been  argued  a 
hundred  times,  and  always  settled  the  same  way.  The  whole 
history  of  the  country,  for  almost  forty  years,  proves  that  such  a 
power  has  been  believed  to  exist.  All  previous  Congresses,  or 
nearly  all,  have  admitted  or  sanctioned  it;  the  judicial  tribunals, 
federal  and  State,  have  sanctioned  it.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  has  declared  the  constitutionality  of  the  pres- 
ent bank,  after  the  most  solemn  argument,  without  a  dissenting 
voice  on  the  bench.  Every  successive  President  has,  tacitly  or 
expressly,  admitted  the  power.  The  present  President  has  done 
this ;  he  has  informed  Congress  that  he  could  furnish  the  plan 
of  a  bank  which  should  conform  to  the  Constitution.  In  object- 
ing to  the  recharter  of  the  present  bank,  he  objected  for  particu- 
lar reasons ;  and  he  has  said  that  a  Bank  of  the  United  States 
would  be  useful  and  convenient  for  the  people. 

All  this  authority,  I  think,  ought  to  settle  the  question.  Both 
the  members  from  New  York,  however,  are  still  unsatisfied ; 

*  Mr.  Poindexter. 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS  527 

they  both  deny  the  power  of  Congress  to  establish  a  bank. 
Now,  Sir,  I  shall  not  argue  the  question  at  this  time;  but  I  will 
repeat  what  I  said  yesterday.  It  does  appear  to  me,  that  the 
late  measures  of  the  administration  prove  incontestably,  and  by 
a  very  short  course  of  reasoning,  the  constitutionality  of  the 
bank.  What  I  said  yesterday,  and  what  I  say  to-day,  is,  that, 
since  the  Secretary,  and  all  who  agree  with  the  Secretary,  admit 
the  necessity  of  the  agency  of  some  bank  to  carry  on  the  affairs 
of  government,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  see  where  they  could  find 
power  to  use  a  State  bank,  and  yet  find  no  power  to  create  a 
Bank  of  the  United  States.  The  gentleman's  perception  may 
be  sharp  enough  to  see  a  distinction  between  these  two 
cases ;  but  it  is  too  minute  for  my  grasp.  It  is  not  said,  in 
terms,  in  the  Constitution,  that  Congress  may  create  a  bank ; 
nor  is  it  said,  in  terms,  that  Congress  may  use  a  bank  created 
by  a  State.  How,  then,  does  it  get  authority  to  do  either  ?  No 
otherwise,  certainly,  than  as  it  possesses  power  to  pass  all 
laws  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  its  enumerated  powers 
into  effect.  If  a  law  were  now  before  us  for  confirming  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  Secretary,  and  adopting  twenty  State  banks 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States,  as  fiscal  agents  of  the 
government,  where  would  the  honorable  gentleman  find  author- 
ity for  passing  such  a  law  ?  Nowhere  but  in  that  clause  of  the 
Constitution  to  which  I  have  referred ;  that  is  to  say,  the  clause 
which  authorizes  Congress  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  and  proper 
for  carrying  its  granted  powers  into  effect.  If  such  a  law  were 
before  us,  and  the  honorable  member  proposed  to  vote  for  it,  he 
would  be  obliged  to  prove  that  the  agency  of  a  bank  is  a  thing 
both  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  on  the  government.  If 
he  could  not  make  this  out,  the  law  would  be  unconstitutional. 
We  see  the  Secretary  admits  the  necessity  of  this  bank  agency ; 
the  gentleman  himself  admits  it,  nay,  contends  for  it.  A  bank 
agency  is  his  main  reliance.  Ah1  the  hopes  expressed  by  himself 
or  his  colleague,  of  being  able  to  get  on  with  the  present  state  of 
things,  rest  on  the  expected  efficiency  of  a  bank  agency. 

A  bank,  then,  or  some  bank,  being  admitted  to  be  both  ne- 
cessary and  proper  for  carrying  on  the  government,  and  the  Sec- 
retary proposing,  en  that  very  ground,  and  no  other,  to  em- 
ploy the  State  banks,  how  does  he  make  out  a  distinction  be- 
tween passing  a  law  for  using  a  necessary  agent,  already  created, 


528  THE   REMOVAL   OF   THE   DEPOSITS. 

and  a  law  for  creating  a  similar  agent,  to  be  used,  when  creator!, 
for  the  same  purpose  ?  If  there  be  any  distinction,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  it  is  rather  in  favor  of  creating  a  bank,  by  the  authority 
of  Congress,  with  such  powers,  and  no  others,  as  the  service 
expected  from  it  requires,  answerable  to  Congress,  and  always 
under  the  control  of  Congress,  than  of  employing  as  our  agents 
banks  created  by  other  governments,  for  other  purposes,  and 
over  which  this  government  has  no  control. 

But,  Sir,  whichever  power  is  exercised,  both  spring  from  the 
same  source ;  and  the  power  to  establish  a  bank,  on  the  ground 
that  its  agency  is  necessary  and  proper  for  the  ends  and  uses 
of  government,  is  at  least  as  plainly  constitutional  as  the  power 
to  adopt  banks,  for  the  same  uses  and  objects,  which  are  already 
made  by  other  governments.  Inded,  the  legal  act  is,  in  both 
cases,  the  same.  When  Congress  makes  a  bank,  it  creates  an 
agency ;  when  it  adopts  a  State  bank,  it  creates  an  agency.  If 
there  be  power  for  one,  therefore,  there  is  power  for  the  other. 
No  power  to  create  a  corporation  is  expressly  given  to  Con- 
gress ;  nor  is  Congress  anywhere  forbidden  to  create  a  corpora- 
tion. The  creation  of  a  corporation  is  an  act  of  law,  and  when 
it  passes,  the  only  question  is,  whether  it  be  a  necessary  and 
proper  law  for  carrying  on  the  government  advantageously. 
The  case  will  be  precisely  the  same  when  we  shall  be  asked  to 
pass  a  law  for  confirming  the  Secretary's  arrangement  with  State 
banks.  Each  is  constitutional,  if  Congress  may  fairly  regard 
it  as  a  necessary  measure. 

The  honorable  member,  Sir,  quoted  me  as  having  said  that  I 
regarded  the  bank  as  one  of  the  greatest  bonds  of  the  union  of 
the  States.  That  is  not  exactly  what  I  said.  What  I  did  say 
was,  that  the  constitutional  power  vested  in  Congress  over  the 
legal  currency  of  the  country  was  one  of  its  very  highest  powers, 
and  that  the  exercise  of  this  high  power  was  one  of  the  strong- 
est bonds  of  the  union  of  the  States.  And  this  I  say  still. 
Sir,  the  gentleman  did  not  go  to  the  Constitution.  He  did  not 
tell  I  us  how  he  understands  it,  or  how  he  proposes  to  execute  the 
great  trust  which  it  devolves  on  Congress  in  respect  to  the  cir- 
culating medium.  I  can  only  say,  Sir,  how  I  understand  it. 

The  Constitution  declares  that  Congress  shall  have  power  "  to 
coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  coin." 
And  it  also  declares  that  "  no  State  shall  coin  money,  emit  bills 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  529 

of  credit,  or  make  any  thing  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in 
payment  of  debts."  Congress,  then,  and  Congress  only,  can 
coin  money,  and  regulate  the  value  thereof.  Now,  Sir,  I  take  it 
to  be  a  truth,  which  has  grown  into  an  admitted  maxim  with  all 
the  best  writers  and  the  best  informed  public  men,  that  those 
whose  duty  it  is  to  protect  the  community  against  the  evils  of  a 
debased  coin,  are  bound  also  to  protect  it  against  the  still  greater 
evils  of  excessive  issues  of  paper. 

If  the  public  require  protection,  says  Mr.  Ricardo,  against  bad 
money,  which  might  be  imposed  on  them  by  an  undue  mixture 
of  alloy,  how  much  more  necessary  is  such  protection  when 
paper  money  forms  almost  the  whole  of  the  circulating  medium 
of  the  country ! 

It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  Sir,  that  the  Constitution  intended 
that  Congress  should  exercise  a  regulating  power,  a  power  both 
necessary  and  salutary,  over  that  which  should  constitute  the 
actual  money  of  the  country,  whether  that  money  were  coin  or 
the  representative  of  coin.  So  it  has  always  been  considered : 
so  Mr.  Madison  considered  it,  as  may  be  seen  in  his  message 
of  the  3d  of  December,  1816.  He  there  says :  — 

"  Upon  this  general  view  of  the  subject,  it  is  obvious  that  there  is  only 
wanting  to  the  fiscal  prosperity  of  the  government  the  restoration  of  a 
uniform  medium  of  exchange.  The  resources  and  the  faith  of  the 
nation,  displayed  in  the  system  which  Congress  has  established,  insure 
respect  and  confidence  both  at  home  and  abroad.  The  local  accumula- 
tions of  the  revenue  have  already  enabled  the  treasury  to  meet  the 
public  engagements  in  the  local  currency  of  most  of  the  States ;  and  it 
,s  expected  that  the  same  cause  will  produce  the  same  effect  throughout 
the  Union.  But  for  the  interests  of  the  community  at  large,  as  well  as 
for  the  purposes  of  the  treasury,  it  is  essential  that  the  nation  should 
possess  a  currency  of  equal  value,  credit,  and  use,  wherever  it  may 
circulate.  The  Constitution  has  intrusted  Congress  exclusively  with  the 
power  of  creating  and  regulating  a  currency  of  that  description ;  and 
the  measures  which  were  taken  during  the  last  session,  in  execution  of 
the  power,  give  every  promise  of  success.  The  Bank  of  the  United 
States  has  been  organized  under  auspices  the  most  favorable,  and  can- 
not fail  to  be  an  important  auxiliary  to  those  measures." 

The  State  banks  put  forth  paper  as  representing  coin.  As 
such  representative,  it  obtains  circulation ;  it  becomes  the  money 
of  the  country ;  but  its  amount  depends  on  the  will  of  four  hun- 

VOL.  in.  45 


o30  THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

dred  different  State  banks,  each  acting  on  its  own  discretion ; 
and  in  the  absence  of  every  thing  preventive  or  corrective  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  what  security  is  there  against  ex- 
cessive issues  of  paper,  and  consequent  depreciation?  The 
public  feels  that  there  is  no  security  against  these  evils ;  it  has 
learned  this  from  experience ;  and  this  very  feeling,  this  distrust 
of  the  paper  of  State  banks,  is  the  very  evil  which  they  them- 
selves have  to  encounter ;  and  it  is  a  most  serious  evil.  They 
know  that  confidence  in  them  is  far  greater  when  there  exists  a 
power  elsewhere  to  prevent  excess  and  depreciation.  Such  a 
power,  therefore,  is  friendly  to  their  best  interests.  It  gives  con- 
fidence and  credit  to  them,  one  and  all.  Hence  a  vast  majority 
of  the  State  banks,  nearly  all,  perhaps,  except  those  who  expect 
to  be  objects  of  particular  favor,  desire  the  continuance  of  a  na- 
tional bank,  as  an  institution  highly  useful  to  themselves. 

The  mode  in  which  the  operations  of  a  national  institution 
afford  security  against  excessive  issues  by  local  banks  is  not  vio- 
lent, coercive,  or  injurious.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  gentle,  salutary, 
and  friendly.  The  result  is  brought  about  by  the  natural  and 
easy  operation  of  things.  The  money  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States,  having  a  more  wide-spread  credit  and  character,  is  con- 
stantly wanted  for  purposes  of  remittance.  It  is  purchased,  there- 
fore, for  this  purpose,  and  paid  for  in  the  bills  of  local  banks  • 
and  it  may  be  purchased,  of  course,  at  par,  or  near  it,  if  these 
local  bills  are  offered  in  the  neighborhood  of  their  own  banks, 
and  these  banks  are  in  good  credit.  These  local  bills  then  re- 
turn to  the  bank  that  issued  them.  The  result  is,  that,  while 
the  local  bills  will  or  may  supply,  in  great  part,  the  local  circu- 
lation (not  being  capable,  for  want  of  more  extended  credit,  of 
being  remitted  to  great  distances),  their  amount  is  thus  limited 
to  the  purposes  of  local  circulation ;  and  any  considerable  ex- 
cess beyond  this  finds,  in  due  season,  a  salutary  corrective.  This 
is  one  of  the  known  benefits  of  the  bank.  Every  man  of  busi- 
ness understands  it,  and  the  whole  country  has  realized  the  se- 
curity which  this  course  of  things  has  produced. 

But,  Sir,  as  to  the  question  of  the  deposits,  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman thinks  he  sees,  at  last,  the  curtain  raised ;  he  sees  the 
object  of  the  whole  debate.  He  insists  that  the  question  of  the 
restoration  of  the  deposits,  and  the  question  of  rechartering  the 
bank,  are  the  same  question.  It  strikes  me,  Sir,  as  being 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  531 

strange  that  the  gentleman  did  not  draw  an  exactly  opposite  in- 
ference from  his  own  premises.  He  says  he  sees  the  Northern 
friends  of  the  bank  and  the  Southern  opposers  of  the  bank 
agreeing  for  the  restoration  of  the  deposits.  This  is  true ;  and 
does  not  this  prove  that  the  question  is  a  separate  one  ?  On  the 
one  question,  the  North  and  the  South  are  together;  on  the 
other,  they  separate.  Either  their  apprehensions  are  obtuse,  cr 
else  this  very  statement  shows  the  questions  to  be  distinct. 

Sir,  since  the  gentleman  has  referred  to  the  North  and  the 
South,  I  will  venture  to  ask  him  if  he  sees  nothing  important  in 
the  aspect  which  the  South  presents  ?  On  this  question  of  the 
deposits,  does  he  not  behold  almost  an  entire  unanimity  in  the 
South  ?  How  many  from  the  Potomac  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
defend  the  removal  ?  For  myself,  I  declare  that  I  have  not 
heard  a  member  of  Congress  from  beyond  the  Potomac  say, 
either  in  or  out  of  his  seat,  that  he  approved  the  measure.  Can 
the  gentleman  see  nothing  in  this  but  proof  that  the  deposit 
question  and  the  question  of  recharter  are  the  same  ?  Sir,  gen- 
tlemen must  judge  for  themselves ;  but  it  appears  plain  enough 
to  me  that  the  President  has  lost  more  friends  at  the  South  by 
this  interference  with  the  public  deposits  than  by  any  or  all 
other  measures. 

I  must  be  allowed  now,  Sir,  to  advert  to  a  remark  in  the 
speech  of  the  honorable  member  from  New  York  on  the  left  of 
the  Chair,*  as  I  find  it  in  a  morning  paper.  It  is  this :  — 

"Be  assured,  Sir,  whatever  nice  distinctions  may  be  drawn  here  as 
to  the  show  of  influence  which  expressions  of  the  popular  will  upon  such 
a  subject  are  entitled  to  from  us,  it  is  possible  for  that  will  to  assume  a 
constitutional  shape,  which  the  Senate  cannot  misunderstand,  and,  un- 
derstanding, will  not  unwisely  resist." 

Mr.  Wright  said,  it  should  have  been  share  of  influence.  Mr.  Web- 
ster continued :  — 

That  does  not  alter  the  sense.  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  keep 
the  avenues  of  public  opinion,  from  the  whole  country  to  the 
Capitol,  all  open,  broad,  and  straight.  I  desire  always  to  know 
the  state  of  that  opinion  on  great  and  important  subjects.  From 
me,  that  opinion  always  has  received,  and  always  will  receive, 
the  most  respectful  attention  and  consideration.  And  whether 

*  Mr.  Wright. 


532  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

it  be  expressed  by  State  legislatures,  or  by  public  meetings,  or  be 
collected  from  individual  expressions,  in  whatever  form  it  comes, 
it  is  always  welcome.  But,  Sir,  the  legislation  for  the  United 
States  must  be  conducted  here.  The  law  of  Congress  must  be 
the  will  of  Congress,  and  the  proceedings  of  Congress  its  own 
proceedings.  I  hope  nothing  intimidating  was  intended  by  this 
expression. 

Mr.  Wright  intimated  it  was  not. 

Then,  Sir,  I  forbear  further  remark. 

Sir,  there  is  one  other  subject  on  which  I  wish  to  raise  my 
voice.  There  is  a  topic  which  I  perceive  is  to  become  the  gen- 
eral war-cry  of  party,  on  which  I  take  the  liberty  to  warn  the 
country  against  delusion.  Sir,  the  cry  is  to  be  raised  that  this 
is  a  question  between  the  poor  and  the  rich.  I  know,  Sir,  it 
has  been  proclaimed,  that  one  thing  was  certain,  that  there  was 
always  a  hatred  on  the  part  of  the  poor  toward  the  rich ;  and 
that  this  hatred  would  support  the  late  measures,  and  the  put- 
ting down  of  the  bank.  Sir,  I  will  not  be  silent  at  the  threat  of 
such  a  detestable  fraud  on  public  opinion.  If  but  ten  men,  or 
one  man,  in  the  nation  will  hear  my  voice,  I  will  still  warn  them 
against  this  attempted  imposition. 

Mr.  President,  this  is  an  eventful  moment.  On  the  great 
questions  which  occupy  us,  we  all  look  for  some  decisive  move- 
ment of  public  opinion.  As  I  wish  that  movement  to  be  free, 
intelligent,  and  unbiased,  the  true  manifestation  of  the  public 
will,  I  desire  to  prepare  the  country  for  another  appeal,  which  I 
perceive  is  about  to  be  made  to  popular  prejudice,  another  at- 
tempt to  obscure  all  distinct  views  of  the  public  good,  to  over- 
whelm all  patriotism  and  all  enlightened  self-interest,  by  loud 
cries  against  false  danger,  and  by  exciting  the  passions  of  one 
class  against  another.  I  am  not  mistaken  in  the  omen ;  I  see 
the  magazine  whence  the  weapons  of  this  warfare  are  to  be 
drawn.  I  hear  already  the  din  of  the  hammering  of  arms  pre- 
paratory to  the  combat.  They  may  be  such  arms,  perhaps,  as 
reason,  and  justice,  and  honest  patriotism  cannot  resist.  Every 
effort  at  resistance,  it  is  possible,  may  be  feeble  and  powerless ; 
but,  for  one,  I  shall  make  an  effort,  —  an  effort  to  be  begun  now, 
and  to  be  carried  on  and  continued,  with  untiring  zeal,  till  the 
end  of  the  contest. 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  533 

Sir,  I  see,  in  those  vehicles  which  carry  to  the  people  senti- 
ments from  high  places,  plain  declarations  that  the  present  con- 
troversy is  but  a  strife  between  one  part  of  the  community  and 
another.  I  hear  it  boasted  as  the  unfailing  security,  the  solid 
ground,  never  to  be  shaken,  on  which  recent  measures  re&f.,  that 
the  poor  naturally  hate  the  rich.  I  know  that,  under  the  cover 
of  the  roofs  of  the  Capitol,  within  the  last  twenty-four  hours, 
among  men  sent  here  to  devise  means  for  the  public  safety  and 
the  public  good,  it  has  been  vaunted  forth,  as  matter  of  boast 
and  triumph,  that  one  cause  existed  powerful  enough  to  sup- 
port every  thing  and  to  defend  every  thing;  and  that  was,  the 
natural  hatred  of  the  poor  to  the  rich. 

Sir,  I  pronounce  the  author  of  such  sentiments  to  be  guilty 
of  attempting  a  detestable  fraud  on  the  community ;  a  double 
fraud ;  a  fraud  which  is  to  cheat  men  out  of  their  property  and 
out  of  the  earnings  of  their  labor,  by  first  cheating  them  out  of 
their  understandings. 

"  The  natural  hatred  of  the  poor  to  the  rich ! "  Sir,  it  shah1 
not  be  till  the  last  moment  of  my  existence,  —  it  shall  be  only 
when  I  am  drawn  to  the  verge  of  oblivion,  when  I  shall  cease 
to  have  respect  or  affection  for  any  thing  on  earth,  —  that  I  will 
believe  the  people  of  the  United  States  capable  of  being  effectu- 
ally deluded,  cajoled,  and  driven  about  in  herds,  by  such  abom- 
inable frauds  as  this.  If  they  shall  sink  to  that  point,  if  they 
so  far  cease  to  be  men,  thinking  men,  intelligent  men,  as  to 
yield  to  such  pretences  and  such  clamor,  they  will  be  slaves 
already ;  slaves  to  their  own  passions,  slaves  to  the  fraud  and 
knavery  of  pretended  friends.  They  will  deserve  to  be  blotted 
out  of  all  the  records  oi  freedom ;  they  ought  not  to  dishonor 
the  cause  of  self-government,  by  attempting  any  longer  to  exer- 
cise it ;  they  ought  to  keep  their  unworthy  hands  entirely  off 
from  the  cause  of  republican  liberty,  if  they  are  capable  of  being 
the  victims  of  artifices  so  shallow,  of  tricks  so  stale,  so  thread- 
bare, so  often  practised,  so  much  worn  out,  on  serfs  and  slaves. 

"  The  natural  hatred  of  the  poor  against  the  rich ! "  "  The 
danger  of  a  moneyed  aristocracy ! "  "A  power  as  great  and 
dangerous  as  that  resisted  by  the  Revolution ! "  "A  call  to  a 
new  declaration  of  independence ! "  Sir,  I  admonish  the  people 
against  the  object  of  outcries  like  these.  I  admonish  every  in- 
dustrious laborer  in  the  country  to  be  on  his  guard  against  such 
45* 


534  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

delusion.  I  tell  him  the  attempt  is  to  play  off  his  passions 
against  his  interests,  and  to  prevail  on  him,  in  the  name  of  lib- 
erty, to  destroy  all  the  fruits  of  liberty ;  in  the  name  of  patriot- 
ism, to  injure  and  afflict  his  country ;  and  in  the  name  of  his 
own  independence,  to  destroy  that  very  independence,  and  make 
him  a  beggar  and  a  slave.  Has  he  a  dollar?  He  is  advised  to 
do  that  which  will  destroy  half  its  value.  Has  he  hands  to  la- 
bor ?  Let  him  rather  fold  them,  and  sit  still,  than  be  pushed  on, 
by  fraud  and  artifice,  to  support  measures  which  will  render  his 
labor  useless  and  hopeless. 

Sir,  the  very  man,  of  all  others,  who  has  the  deepest  interest 
in  a  sound  currency,  and  who  suffers  most  by  mischievous  leg- 
islation in  money  matters,  is  the  man  who  earns  his  daily  bread 
by  his  daily  toil.  A  depreciated  currency,  sudden  changes  of 
prices,  paper  money,  falling  between  morning  and  noon,  and 
falling  still  lower  between  noon  and  night,  —  these  things  consti- 
tute the  very  harvest-time  of  speculators,  and  of  the  whole  race 
of  those  who  are  at  once  idle  and  crafty ;  and  of  that  other  race, 
too,  the  Catilines  of  all  times,  marked,  so  as  to  be  known  for 
ever  by  one  stroke  of  the  historian's  pen,  those  greedy  of  other 
men's  property  and  prodigal  of  their  own.  Capitalists,  too,  may 
outlive  such  times.  They  may  either  prey  on  the  earnings  of 
labor,  by  their  cent,  per  cent.,  or  they  may  hoard.  But  the  labor- 
ing man,  what  can  he  hoard  ?  Preying  on  nobody,  he  becomes 
the  prey  of  all.  His  property  is  in  his  hands.  His  reliance,  his 
fund,  his  productive  freehold,  his  all,  is  his  labor.  Whether  he 
work  on  his  own  small  capital,  or  another's,  his  living  is  still 
earned  by  his  industry ;  and  when  the  money  of  the  country  be- 
comes depreciated  and  debased,  whether  it  be  adulterated  coin 
or  paper  without  credit,  that  industry  is  robbed  of  its  reward. 
He  then  labors  for  a  country  whose  laws  cheat  him  out  of  his 
bread.  I  would  say  to  every  owner  of  every  quarter-section  of 
land  in  the  West,  I  would  say  to  every  man  in  the  East  who 
follows  his  own  plough,  and  to  every  mechanic,  artisan,  and  la- 
borer in  every  city  in  the  country,  —  I  would  say  to  every  man, 
everywhere,  who  wishes  by  honest  means  to  gain  an  honest  liv- 
ing, "  Beware  of  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing.  Whoever  attempts, 
under  whatever  popular  cry,  to  shake  the  stability  of  the  public 
currency,  bring  on  distress  in  money  matters,  and  drive  the  coun- 
try into  the  use  of  paper  money,  stabs  your  interest  and  your 
happiness  to  the  heart.'5 


THE   REMOVAL   OF   THE  DEFJS1TS.      .  535 

The  herd  of  hungry  wolves  who  live  on  other  men's  earnings 
will  rejoice  in  such  a  state  of  things.  A  system  which  absorbs 
into  their  pockets  the  fruits  of  other  'len's  industry  is  the  very 
system  for  them.  A  government  that  produces  or  counte- 
nances uncertainty,  fluctuations,  violent  risings  and  faUings  in 
prices,  and,  finally,  paper  money,  is  a  government  exactly  af- 
ter their  own  heart.  Hence  these  men  are  always  for  change. 
They  will  never  let  well  enough  alone.  A  condition  of  public 
affairs  in  which  property  is  safe,  industry  certain  of  its  reward, 
and  every  man  secure  in  his  own  hard-earned  gains,  is  no  para- 
dise for  them.  Give  them  just  the  reverse  of  this  state  of  things; 
bring  on  change,  and  change  after  change ;  let  it  not  be  known 
to-day  what  will  be  the  value  of  property  to-morrow;  let  no 
man  be  able  to  say  whether  the  money  in  his  pockets  at  night 
will  be  money  or  worthless  rags  in  the  morning ;  and  depress 
labor  till  double  work  shall  earn  but  half  a  living,  —  give  them 
this  state  of  things,  and  you  give  them  the  consummation  of 
their  earthly  bliss. 

Sir,  the  great  interest  of  this  great  country,  the  producing 
cause  of  aU  its  prosperity,  is  labor !  labor !  labor !  We  are  a 
laboring  community.  A  vast  majority  of  us  all  live  by  indus- 
try and  actual  employment  in  some  of  their  forms.  The  Consti- 
tution was  made  to  protect  this  industry,  to  give  it  both  encour- 
agement and  security ;  but,  above  all,  security.  To  that  very 
end,  with  that  precise  object  in  view,  power  was  given  to  Con- 
gress over  the  currency,  and  over  the  money  system  of  the  coun- 
try. In  forty  years'  experience,  we  have  found  nothing  at  ah1 
adequate  to  the  beneficial  execution  of  this  trust  but  a  well- 
conducted  national  bank.  That  has  been  tried,  returned  to, 
tried  again,  and  always  found  successful.  If  it  be  not  the  proper 
thing  for  us,  let  it  be  soberly  argued  against;  let  something  better 
be  proposed ;  let  the  country  examine  the  matter  coolly,  and  de- 
cide for  itself.  But  whoever  shall  attempt  to  carry  a  question  of 
this  kind  by  clamor,  and  violence,  and  prejudice ;  whoever  would 
rouse  the  people  by  appeals,  false  and  fraudulent  appeals,  to  their 
love  of  independence,  to  resist  the  establishment  of  a  useful  in- 
stitution, because  it  is  a  bank,  and  deals  in  money,  and  who 
artfully  urges  these  appeals  wherever  he  thinks  there  is  more  of 
honest  feeling  than  of  enlightened  judgment,  —  means  nothing 
but  deception.  And  whoever  has  the  wickedness  to  conceive,  and 


THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

the  hardihood  to  avow,  a  purpose  to  break  down  what  has  been 
found,  in  forty  years'  experience,  essential  to  the  protection  of 
all  interests,  by  arraying  one  class  against  another,  and  by  act- 
ing on  such  a  principle  as  that  the  poor  always  hate  the  rich, 
shows  himself  the  reckless  enemy  of  all.  An  enemy  to  his 
whole  country,  to  all  classes,  and  to  every  man  in  it,  he  deserves 
to  be  marked  especially  as  the  poor  man's  curse  ! 

Mr.  President,  I  feel  that  it  becomes  me  to  bring  to  the  pres- 
ent crisis  all  of  intellect,  all  of  diligence,  all  of  devotion  to  the 
public  good,  that  I  possess.  I  act,  Sir,  in  opposition  to  nobody. 
I  desire  rather  to  follow  the  administration,  in  a  proper  remedy 
for  the  present  distress,  than  to  lead.  I  have  felt  so  from  the 
beginning,  and  until  the  declaration  of  yesterday  made  it  certain 
that  there  is  no  further  measure  to  be  proposed.  The  expec- 
tation is,  that  the  country  will  get  on  under  the  present  state  of 
things.  Being  myself  entirely  of  a  different  opinion,  and  looking 
for  no  effectual  relief  until  some  other  measure  is  adopted,  I 
shall,  nevertheless,  be  most  happy  to  be  disappointed.  But  if 
I  shall  not  be  mistaken,  if  the  pressure  shall  continue,  and  if 
the  indications  of  general  public  sentiment  shall  point  in  that 
direction,  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty,  let  the  consequences  be  what 
they  may,  to  propose  a  law  for  altering-  and  continuing"  the  char- 
ter of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States. 


ON  Saturday,  the  22d  of  February,  in  a  debate  on  presenting  a  memo- 
rial from  Maine,  Mr.  Forsyth  having,  on  the  day  before,  described  what 
he  understood  to  be  the  experiment  which  the  executive  government  was 
tiying  in  regard  to  the  public  deposits,  Mr.  Webster  addressed  the  Sen- 
ate as  follows. 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  honorable  member  from  Georgia  stated 
yesterday,  more  distinctly  than  I  have  before  learned  it,  what 
that  experiment  is  which  the  government  is  now  trying  on  the 
revenues  and  the  currency,  and,  I  may  add,  on  the  commerce, 
manufactures,  and  agriculture  of  this  country.  If  I  rightly  ap- 
prehend him,  this  experiment  is  an  attempt  to  return  to  an 
exclusive  specie  currency,  first,  by  employing  the  State  banks 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  531/ 

as  a  substitute  for  the  Bank  of  the  United  States ;  and  then  by 
dispensing  with  the  use  of  the  State  banks  themselves. 

This,  Sir,  is  the  experiment.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  thus 
stating  its  character.  He  has  done  his  duty,  and  dealt  fairly 
with  the  people,  by  this  exhibition  of  what  the  views  of  the 
executive  government  are,  at  this  interesting  moment.  It  is  cer- 
tainly most  proper  that  the  people  should  see  distinctly  to  what 
end  or  for  what  object  it  is  that  so  much  suffering  is  already 
upon  them,  and  so  much  more  already  in  visible  and  near  pros- 
pect. 

A  nd  now,  Sir,  is  it  possible,  —  is  it  possible  that  twelve  mil- 
lions of  intelligent  people  can  be  expected  voluntarily  to  subject 
themselves  to  severe  distress,  of  unknown  duration,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  trial  of  an  experiment  like  this  ?  Will  a  nation  that 
is  intelligent,  well  informed  of  its  own  interest,  enlightened,  and 
capable  of  self-government,  submit  to  suffer  embarrassment  in 
all  its  pursuits,  loss  of  capital,  loss  of  employment,  and  a  sudden 
and  dead  stop  in  its  onward  movement  in  the  path  of  prosperity 
and  wealth,  until  it  shall  be  ascertained  whether  this  new- 
hatched  theory  shall  answer  the  hopes  of  those  who  have  devised 
it  ?  Is  the  country  to  be  persuaded  to  bear  every  thing,  and  bear 
patiently,  until  the  operation  of  such  an  experiment,  adopted 
for  such  an  avowed  object,  and  adopted,  too,  without  the  co- 
operation or  consent  of  Congress,  and  by  the  executive  power 
alone,  shall  exhibit  its  results  ? 

In  the  name  of  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  suffering 
fellow-citizens,  I  ask,  for  what  reasonable  end  is  this  experiment 
to  be  tried  ?  What  great  and  good  object,  worth  so  much  cost, 
is  it  to  accomplish  ?  What  enormous  evil  is  to  be  remedied  by 
all  this  inconvenience  and  all  this  suffering  ?  What  great  calam- 
ity is  to  be  averted  ?  Have  the  people  thronged  our  doors,  and 
loaded  our  tables  with  petitions  for  relief  against  the  pressure  of 
some  political  mischief,  some  notorious  misrule,  which  this  ex- 
periment is  to  redress  ?  Has  it  been  resorted  to  in  an  hour  of 
misfortune,  calamity,  or  peril,  to  save  the  state  ?  Is  it  a  meas- 
ure of  remedy,  yielded  to  the  importunate  cries  of  an  agitated 
and  distressed  nation  ?  Far,  Sir,  very  far  from  all  this.  There 
was  no  calamity,  there  was  no  suffering,  there  was  no  peril, 
when  .these  measures  began.  At  the  moment  when  this  ex- 
periment was  entered  upon,  these  twelve  millions  of  people 


538  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

were  prosperous  and  happy,  not  only  beyond  the  example 
of  all  others,  but  even  beyond  their  own  example  in  time? 
past. 

There  was  no  pressure  of  public  or  private  distress  throughoul 
the  whole  land.  All  business  was  prosperous,  all  industry  was 
rewarded,  and  cheerfulness  and  content  universally  prevailed. 
Yet,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  enjoyment,  with  so  much  to  height- 
en and  so  little  to  mar  it,  this  experiment  comes  upon  us,  to 
harass  and  oppress  us  at  present,  and  to  affright  us  for  the  fu- 
ture. Sir,  it  is  incredible ;  the  world  abroad  will  not  believe  it ; 
it  is  difficult  even  for  us  to  credit,  who  see  it  with  our  own 
eyes,  that  the  country,  at  such  a  moment,  should  put  itself  upon 
an  experiment  fraught  with  such  immediate  and  overwhelming 
evils,  and  threatening  the  property  and  the  employments  of  the 
people,  and  all  their  social  and  political  blessings,  with  severe 
and  long-enduring  future  inflictions. 

And  this  experiment,  with  all  its  cost,  is  to  be  tried,  for 
what  ?  Why,  simply,  Sir,  to  enable  us  to  try  another  "  experi- 
ment " ;  and  that  other  experiment  is,  to  see  whether  an  exclu- 
sive specie  currency  may  not  be  better  than  a  currency  partly 
specie  and  partly  bank  paper!  The  object  which  it  is  hoped 
we  may  effect,  by  patiently  treading  this  path  of  endurance,  is  to 
banish  all  bank  paper,  of  all  kinds,  and  to  have  coined  money, 
and  coined  money  only,  as  the  actual  currency  of  the  country ! 

Now,  Sir,  I  altogether  deny  that  such  an  object  is  at  all  de- 
sirable, even  if  it  could  be  attained.  I  know,  indeed,  that  all 
paper  ought  to  circulate  on  a  specie  basis ;  that  all  bank-notes, 
to  be  safe,  must  be  convertible  into  gold  and  silver  at  the  will 
of  the  holder ;  and  I  admit,  too,  that  the  issuing  of  very  small 
notes  by  many  of  the  State  banks  has  too  much  reduced  the 
amount  of  specie  actually  circulating.  It  may  be  remembered 
that  I  called  the  attention  of  Congress  to  this  subject  in  1832, 
and  that  the  bill  which  then  passed  both  houses  for  renewing 
[the  bank  charter  contained  a  provision  designed  to  produce 
some  restraint  on  the  circulation  of  very  small  notes.  I  admit 
there  are  conveniences  in  making  small  payments  in  specie; 
and  I  have  always  not  only  admitted,  but  contended,  that,  if 
all  issues  of  bank-notes  under  five  dollars  were  discontinued, 
much  more  specie  would  be  retained  in  the  country,  and  in  the 
circulation ;  and  that  great  security  would  result  from  this. 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  539 

But  we  are  now  debating  about  an  exclusive  specie  currency, 
and  I  deny  that  an  exclusive  specie  currency  is  the  best  currency 
for  any  highly  commercial  country ;  and  I  deny,  especially,  that 
such  a  currency  would  be  best  suited  to  the  condition  and  cir- 
cumstances of  the  United  States.  With  the  enlightened  writers 
and  practical  statesmen  of  all  commercial  communities  in  mod- 
ern times,  I  have  supposed  it  to  be  admitted  that  a  well  regulat- 
ed, properly  restrained,  safely  limited  paper  currency,  circulating 
on  an  adequate  specie  basis,  was  a  thing  to  be  desired,  a  political 
public  advantage  to  be  obtained,  if  it  might  be  obtained ;  and, 
more  especially,  I  have  supposed  that  in  a  new  country,  with 
resources  not  yet  half  developed,  with  a  rapidly  increasing  popu- 
lation and  a  constant  demand  for  more  and  more  capital,  —  that 
is  to  say,  in  just  such  a  country  as  the  United  States  are,  I  have 
supposed  that  it  was  admitted  that  there  are  particular  and 
extraordinary  advantages  in  a  safe  and  well  regulated  paper 
currency ;  because  in  such  a  country  well  regulated  bank  paper 
not  only  supplies  a  convenient  medium  of  payments  and  of  ex- 
change, but  also,  by  the  expansion  of  that  medium  in  a  reason- 
able and  safe  degree,  the  amount  of  circulation  is  kept  more 
.nearly  commensurate  with  the  constantly  increasing  amount  of 
property  ;  and  an'extended  capital,  in  the  sJiape  of  credit,  comes 
to  the  aid  of  the  enterprising  and  the  industrious.  It  is  precisely 
on  this  credit,  created  by  reasonable  expansion  of  the  currency 
in  a  new  country,  that  men  of  small  capital  carry  on  their 
business.  It  is  exactly  by  means  of  this,  that  industry  and 
enterprise  are  stimulated.  If  we  were  driven  back  to  an  exclu- 
sively metallic  currency,  the  necessary  and  inevitable  conse- 
quence would  be,  that  all  trade  would  fall  into  the  hands  of 
large  capitalists.  This  is  so  plain,  that  no  man  of  reflection 
can  doubt  it.  I  know  not,  therefore,  in  what  words  to  express 
my  astonishment,  when  I  hear  it  said  that  the  present  measures 
of  government  are  intended  for  the  good  of  the  many  instead  of 
the  few,  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor,  and  against  the  rich ;  and 
when  I  hear  it  proposed,  at  the  same  moment,  to  do  away  with 
the  whole  system  of  credit,  and  place  all  trade  and  commerce, 
therefore,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  adequate  capital  to 
carry  them  on  without  the  use  of  any  credit  at  all.  This,  Sir, 
would  be  dividing  society,  by  a  precise,  distinct,  and  well- 
defined  line,  into  two  classes;  first,  the  small  class,  who  have 


540  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

competent  capital  for  trade,  when  credit  is  out  of  the  question , 
and,  secondly,  the  vastly  numerous  class  of  those  whose  living 
must  become,  in  such  a  state  of  things,  a  mere  manual  occupa- 
tion, without  the  use  of  capital  or  of  any  substitute  for  it. 

Now,  Sir,  it  is  the  effect  of  a  well  regulated  system  of  paper 
credit  to  break  in  upon  this  line  thus  dividing  the  many  from 
the  few,  and  to  enable  more  or  less  of  the  more  numerous  class 
to  pass  over  it,  and  to  participate  in  the  profits  of  capital  by 
means  of  a  safe  and  convenient  substitute  for  capital ;  and 
thus  to  diffuse  far  more  widely  the  general  earnings,  and  there- 
fore the  general  prosperity  and  happiness,  of  society.  Every 
man  of  observation  must  have  witnessed,  in  this  country,  that 
men  of  heavy  capital  have  constantly  complained  of  bank  circu- 
lation, and  a  consequent  credit  system,  as  injurious  to  the  rights 
of  capital.  They  undoubtedly  feel  its  effects.  All  that  is  gained 
by  the  use  of  credit  is  just  so  much  subtracted  from  the  amount 
of  their  own  accumulations,  and  so  much  the  more  has  gone  to 
the  benefit  of  those  who  bestow  their  own  labor  and  industry  on 
capital  in  small  amounts.  To  the  great  majority,  this  has  been 
of  incalculable  benefit  in  the  United  States ;  and  therefore,  Sir, 
whoever  attempts  the  entire  overthrow  of  the  system  of  bank 
credit  aims  a  deadly  blow  at  the  interest  of  that  great  and  in- 
dustrious class,  who,  having  some  capital,  cannot,  nevertheless, 
transact  business  without  some  credit.  He  can  mean  nothing 
else,  if  he  have  any  intelligible  meaning  at  all,  than  to  turn  all 
such  persons  over  to  the  long  list  of  mere  manual  laborers. 
What  else  can  they  do,  with  not  enough  of  absolute  capital, 
and  with  no  credit?  This,  Sir,  this  is  the  true  tendency  and 
the  unavoidable  result  of  these  measures,  which  have  been  un- 
dertaken with  the  patriotic  object  of  assisting  the  poor  against 
the  rich ! 

I  am  weU  aware  that  bank  credit  may  be  abused.  I  know 
that  there  is  another  extreme,  exactly  the  opposite  of  that  of  which 
I  have  now  been  speaking,  and  no  less  sedulously  to  be  avoid- 
ed. I  know  that  the  issue  of  bank  paper  may  become  excessive  ; 
that  depreciation  will  then  follow;  and  that  the  evils,  the  losses, 
and  the  frauds  consequent  on  a  disordered  currency  fall  on  the 
rich  and  the  poor  together,  but  with  especial  weight  of  ruin  on 
the  poor.  I  know  that  the  system  of  bank  credit  must  always 
rest  on  a  specie  basis,  and  that  it  constantly  needs  to  be  strictly 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  5-41 

guarded  and  properly  restrained ;  and  it  may  be  so  guarded  and 
restrained.  We  need  not  give  up  the  good  which  belongs  to 
it,  through  fear  of  the  evils  which  may  follow  from  its  abuse. 
We  have  the  power  to  take  security  against  these  evils.  It 
is  our  business,  as  statesmen,  to  adopt  that  security;  it  is  our 
business,  not  to  prostrate,  or  attempt  to  prostrate,  the  system, 
but  to  use  th.ose  means  of  precaution,  restraint,  and  correction, 
which  experience  has  sanctioned,  and  which  are  ready  at  our 
hands. 

It  would  be  to  our  everlasting  reproach,  it  would  be  placing 
us  below  the  general  level  of  the  intelligence  of  civilized  states, 
to  admit  that  we  cannot  contrive  means  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of 
bank  circulation,  and  of  avoiding,  at  the  same  time,  its  dangers. 
Indeed,  Sir,  no  contrivance  is  necessary.  It  is  contrivance,  and 
the  love  of  contrivance,  that  spoil  all.  We  are  destroying  our- 
selves by  a  remedy  which  no  evil  called  for.  We  are  ruining 
perfect  health  by  nostrums  and  quackery.  We  have  lived  hith- 
erto under  a  well  constructed,  practical,  and  beneficial  system ; 
a  system  not  surpassed  by  any  in  the  world ;  and  it  seems  to  me 
to  be  presuming  largely,  largely  indeed,  on  the  credulity  and 
self-denial  of  the  people,  to  rush  with  such  sudden  and  impetu- 
ous haste  into  new  schemes  and  new  theories,  to  overturn  and 
annihilate  all  that  we  have  so  long  found  useful. 

Our  system  has  hitherto  been  one 'in  which  paper  has  been 
circulating  on  the  strength  of  a  specie  basis ;  that  is  to  say,  when 
every  bank-note  was  convertible  into  specie  at  the  will  of  the 
holder.  This  has  been  our  guard  against  excess.  While  banks 
are  bound  to  redeem  their  bills  by  paying  gold  and  silver  on 
demand,  and  are  at  all  times  able  to  do  this,  the  currency  is  safe 
and  convenient.  Such  a  currency  is  not  paper  money,  in  its 
odious  sense.  It  is  not  like  the  Continental  paper  of  Revolution- 
ary times ;  it  is  not  like  the  worthless  bills  of  banks  which  have 
suspended  specie  payments.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  represent- 
ative of  gold  and  silver,  and  convertible  into  gold  and  silver  on 
demand,  and  therefore  answers  the  purposes  of  gold  and  silver; 
and  so  long  as  its  credit  is  in  this  way  sustained,  it  is  the  cheap- 
est, the  best,  and  the  most  convenient  circulating  medium.  I 
have  already  endeavored  to  warn  the  country  against  irredeem- 
able paper;  against  the  paper  of  banks  which  do  not  pay  specie 
for  their  own  notes ;  against  that  miserable,  abominable,  and 

VOL.  in.  46 


542  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

fraudulent  policy,  which  attempts  to  give  value  to  any  paper,  of 
any  bank,  one  single  moment  longer  than  such  paper  is  redeem- 
able on  demand  in  gold  and  silver.  I  wish  most  solemnly  and 
earnestly  to  repeat  that  warning.  I  see  danger  of  that  state  of 
things  ahead.  I  see  imminent  danger  that  a  portion  of  the 
State  banks  will  stop  specie  payments.  The  late  measure  of 
the  Secretary,  and  the  infatuation  with  which  it  seems  to  be 
supported,  tend  directly  and  strongly  to  that  result.  Under  pre- 
tence, then,  of  a  design  to  return  to  a  currency  which  shall  be 
all  specie,  we  are  likely  to  have  a  currency  in  which  there  shall 
be  no  specie  at  all.  We  are  in  danger  of  being  overwhelmed 
with  irredeemable  paper,  mere  paper,  representing  not  gold  nor 
silver ;  no,  Sir,  representing  nothing  but  broken  promises,  bad 
faith,  bankrupt  corporations,  cheated  creditors,  and  a  ruined  peo- 
ple. This,  I  fear,  Sir,  may  be  the  consequence,  already  alarm- 
ingly near,  of  this  attempt,  unwise  if  it  be  real,  and  grossly 
fraudulent  if  it  be  only  pretended,  of  establishing  an  exclusively 
hard-money  currency. 

But,  Sir,  if  this  shock  could  be  avoided,  and  if  we  could  reach 
the  object  of  an  exclusive  metallic  circulation,  we  should  find  in 
that  very  success  serious  and  insurmountable  inconveniences. 
"We  require  neither  irredeemable  paper,  nor  yet  exclusively  hard 
money.  We  require  a  mixed  system.  We  require  specie,  and 
we  require,  too,  good  bank*  paper,  founded  on  specie,  representing 
specie,  and  convertible  into  specie  on  demand.  We  require,  in 
short,  just  such  a  currency  as  we  have  long  enjoyed,  and  the  ad- 
vantages of  which  we  seem  now,  with  unaccountable  rashness, 
about  to  throw  away. 

I  avow  myself,  therefore,  decidedly  against  the  object  of  a 
return  to  an  exclusive  specie  currency.  I  find  great  difficulty,  I 
confess,  in  believing  any  man  serious  in  avowing  such  an  object. 
It  seems  to  me  rather  a  subject  for  ridicule,  at  this  age  of  the 
world,  than  for  sober  argument.  But  if  it  be  true  that  any  are 
serious  for  the  return  of  the  gold  and  silver  age,  I  am  seriously 
against  it. 

Let  us,  Sir,  anticipate,  in  imagination,  the  accomplishment  of 
this  grand  experiment.  Let  us  suppose  that,  at  this  moment, 
all  bank  paper  were  out  of  existence,  and  the  country  full  of  spe- 
eie.  Where,  Sir,  should  we  put  it,  and  what  should  we  do  with 
it  ?  Should  we  ship  it,  by  cargoes,  every  day,  from  New  York 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  543 

to  New  Orleans,  and  from  New  Orleans  back  to  New  York? 
Should  we  encumber  the  turnpikes,  the  railroads,  and  the  steam- 
boats with  it,  whenever  purchases  and  sales  were  to  be  made  in 
one  place  of  articles  to  be  transported  to  another?  The  carriage 
of  the  money  would,  in  some  cases,  cost  half  as  much  as  the  car- 
riage of  the  goods.  Sir,  the  very  first  day,  under  such  a  state  of 
things,  we  should  set  ourselves  about  the  creation  of  banks.  This 
would  immediately  become  necessary  and  unavoidable.  We 
may  assure  ourselves,  therefore,  without  danger  of  mistake,  that 
the  idea  of  an  exclusively  metallic  currency  is  totally  incompat- 
ible, in  the  existing  state  of  the  world,  with  an  active  and  exten- 
sive commerce.  It  is  inconsistent,  too,  with  the  greatest  good 
of  the  greatest  number ;  and  therefore  I  oppose  it. 

But,  Sir,  how  are  we  to  get  through  the  first  experiment,  so 
as  to  be  able  to  try  that  which  is  to  be  final  and  ultimate,  that 
is  to  say,  how  are  we  to  get  rid  of  the  State  banks  ?  How  is 
this  to  be  accomplished  ?  Of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
indeed,  we  may  free  ourselves  readily ;  but  how  are  we  to  anni- 
hilate the  State  banks  ?  We  did  not  speak  them  into  being ; 
we  cannot  speak  them  out  of  being.  They  did  not  originate  in 
any  exercise  of  our  power ;  nor  do  they  owe  their  continuance 
to  our  indulgence.  They  are  responsible  to  the  States ;  to  us 
they  are  irresponsible.  We  cannot  act  upon  them ;  we  can  only 
act  with  them ;  and  the  expectation,  as  it  would  appear,  is,  that, 
by  zealously  cooperating  with  the  government  in  carrying  into 
operation  its  new  theory,  they  may  disprove  the  necessity  of 
their  own  existence,  and  fairly  work  themselves  out  of  the  world ! 
Sir,  I  ask  once  more,  Is  a  great  and  intelligent  community  to 
endure  patiently  all  sorts  of  suffering  for  fantasies  like  these? 
How  charmingly  practicable,  how  delightfully  probable,  all  this 
looks ! 

I  find  it  impossible,  Mr.  President,  to  believe  that  the  removal 
of  the  deposits  arose  in  any  such  purpose  as  is  now  avowed.  I 
believe  all  this  to  be  an  after-thought.  The  removal  was  re- 
solved on  as  a  strong  measure  against  the  bank ;  and  now  that 
it  has  been  attended  with  consequences  not  at  all  apprehended 
from  it,  instead  of  being  promptly  retracted,  as  it  should  have 
been,  it  is  to  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  a  grand  experiment, 
above  the  reach  of  common  sagacity,  and  dropped  down,  as  it 


544  THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

were,  from  the  clouds,  *'  to  witch  the  world  with  noble  policy." 
It  is  not  credible,  not  possible,  Sir,  that,  six  months  ago,  the 
administration  suddenly  started  off  to  astonish  mankind  with 
its  new  inventions  in  politics,  and  that  it  then  began  its  mag- 
nificent project  by  removing  the  deposits  as  its  first  operation. 
No,  Sir,  no  such  thing.  The  removal  of  the  deposits  was  a 
blow  at  the  bank,  and  nothing  more ;  and  if  it  had  succeeded, 
we  should  have  heard  nothing  of  any  project  for  the  final  put 
ting  down  of  all  State  banks.  No,  Sir,  not  one  word.  We 
should  have  heard,  on  the  contrary,  only  of  their  usefulness, 
their  excellence,  and  their  exact  adaptation  to  the  uses  and 
necessities  of  this  government.  But  the  experiment  of  making 
successful  use  of  State  banks  having  failed,  completely  failed, 
in  this  the  very  first  endeavor;  the  State  banks  having  already 
proved  themselves  not  able  to  fill  the  place  and  perform  the 
duties  of  a  national  bank,  although  highly  useful  in  their  appro- 
priate sphere ;  and  the  disastrous  consequences  of  the  measures 
of  government  coming  thick  and  fast  upon  us,  the  professed 
object  of  the  whole  movement  is  at  once  changed,  and  the  cry 
now  is,  Down  with  all  the  State  banks !  Down  with  all  the  State 
banks !  and  let  us  return  to  our  embraces  of  solid  gold  and  solid 
silver ! 

Sir,  I  have  no  doubt  that,  if  there  are  any  persons  in  the 
country  who  have  seriously  wished  for  such  an  event  as  the  ex- 
tinction of  all  banks,  they  have  not,  nevertheless,  looked  for  the 
absence  of  all  paper  circulation.  They  have  only  looked  for 
issues  of  paper  from  another  quarter.  We  have  already  had 
distinct  intimations  that  paper  might  be  issued  on  the  foun- 
dation of  the  revenue.  The  treasury  of  the  United  States  is 
intended  to  become  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  meant  to  be  the  great  national 
banker.  Sir,  to  say  nothing  of  the  crudity  of  such  a  notion,  I 
may  be  allowed  to  make  one  observation  upon  it.  We  have, 
heretofore,  heard  much  of  the  danger  of  consolidation,  and  of 
the  great  and  well-grounded  fear  of  the  union  of  all  powers  in 
this  government.  Now,  Sir,  when  we  shall  be  brought  to  the 
state  of  things  in  which  all  the  circulating  paper  of  the  country 
shall  be  issued  directly  by  the  treasury  department,  under  the 
immediate  control  of  the  executive,  we  shall  have  consolidation 
with  a  witness ! 


THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  545 

Mr.  President,  this  experiment,  will  not. amuse  the  people  of 
this  country.  They  are  quite  too  serious  to  be  amused.  Their 
suffering  is  too  intense  to  be  sported  with.  Assuredly,  Sir, 
they  will  not  be  patient  as  bleeding  lambs  under  the  deprivation 
of  great  present  good,  and  the  menace  of  unbearable  future 
evils.  They  are  not  so  unthinking,  so  stupid,  I  may  almost  sav. 
as  to  forego  the  rich  blessings  now  in  their  actual  enjoyment j 
and  trust  the  future  to  the  contingencies  and  the  chances  which 
may  betide  an  unnecessary  and  a  wild  experiment.  They  will 
not  expose  themselves  at  once  to  injury  and  to  ridicule.  They 
will  not  buy  reproach  and  scorn  at  so  dear  a  rate.  They  will 
not  purchase  the  pleasure  of  being  laughed  at  by  all  mankind 
at  a  price  quite  so  enormous. 

Mr.  President,  the  objects  avowed  in  this  most  extraordinary 
measure  are  altogether  undesirable.  The  end,  if  it  could  be 
obtained,  is  an  end  fit  to  be  strenuously  avoided;  and  the  pro- 
cess adopted  to  carry  on  the  experiment,  and  to  reach  that  end 
(which  it  can  never  attain,  and  which,  in  that  respect,  wholly 
fails),  does  not  fail,  meantime,  to  spread  far  and  wide  a  deep 
and  general  distress,  and  to  agitate  the  country  beyond  any 
thing  which  has  heretofore  happened  to  us  in  a  time  of  peace. 

Sir,  the  people,  in  my  opinion,  will  not  support  this  experi- 
ment. They  feel  it  to  be  afflictive,  and  they  see  it  to  be  ridicu- 
lous; and  ere  long,  I  verily  believe,  they  will  sweep  it  away 
with  the  resistless  breath  of  their  own  voice,  and  bury  it  up  with 
the  great  mass  of  the  detected  delusions  and  rejected  follies  of 
other  times.  I  seek,  Sir,  to  shun  all  exaggeration.  I  avoid 
studiously  all  inflammatory  over-statement,  and  all  emblazoning. 
But  I  beseech  gentlemen  to  open  their  eyes  and  their  ears  to 
what  is  passing  in  the  country,  and  not  to  deceive  themselves 
with  the  hope  that  things  can  long  remain  as  they  are,  or  that 
any  beneficial  change  will  come  until  the  present  policy  shall  be 
totally  abandoned.  I  attempted,  Sir,  the  other  day,  to  describe 
shortly  the  progress  of  the  public  distress.  Its  first  symptom 
was  spasm,  contraction,  agony.  It  seized  first  the  commercial 
and  trading  classes.  Some  survive  it,  and  some  do  not.  But 
those  who,  with  whatever  loss,  effort,  and  sacrifice,  get  through 
the  crisis  without  absolute  bankruptcy,  take  good  care  to  make 
no  new  engagements  till  there  shall  be  a  change  of  times. 
They  abstain  from  all  further  undertakings ;  and  thi?  brings  the 
46* 


546  THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

pressure  immediately  home  to  those  who  live  by  then  employ- 
ments. That  great  class  now  begin  to  feel  the  distress.  Houses, 
warehouses,  and  ships  are  not  now,  as  usual,  put  under  con- 
tract in  the  cities.  Manufacturers  are  beginning  to  dismiss  their 
hands  on  the  sea-coast  and  in  the  interior ;  and  our  artisans  and 
mechanics,  acting  for  themselves  only,  are  likely  soon  to  feel 
a  severe  want  of  employment  in  their  several  occupations. 

This,  Sir,  is  the  real  state  of  things.  It  is  a  state  of  things 
which  is  daily  growing  worse  and  worse.  It  calls  loudly  for 
remedy ;  the  people  demand  remedy,  and  they  are  likely  to  per- 
sist in  that  demand  till  remedy  shall  come.  For  one,  I  have  no 
new  remedy  to  propose.  My  sentiments  are  known.  I  am  for 
rechartering  the  bank,  for  a  longer  or  a  shorter  time,  and  with 
more  or  less  of  modification.  I  am  for  trying  no  new  experi- 
ments on  the  property,  the  employments,  and  the  happiness  of 
the  whole  people. 

Our  proper  course  appears  to  me  to  be  as  plain  and  direct  as 
the  Pennsylvania  Avenue.  The  evil  which  the  country  endures, 
although  entirely  new  in  its  .extent,  its  depth,  and  its  severity,  is 
not  new  in  its  class.  Other  such  like  evils,  but  of  much  milder 
form,  we  have  felt  in  former  times.  In  former  times,  we  have 
been  obliged  to  encounter  the  pernicious  effects  of  a  disordered 
currency,  of  a  general  want  of  confidence,  and  of  depreciated 
State  bank  paper.  To  these  evils  we  have  applied  the  remedy 
of  a  well-constituted  national  bank,  and  have  found  it  effectual. 
I  am  for  trying  it  again.  Approved  by  forty  years'  experience, 
sanctioned  by  all  successive  administrations,  and  by  Congress  at 
all  times,  and  called  for,  as  I  verily  believe,  at  this  very  moment, 
by  a  vast  majority  of  the  people,  on  what  ground  do  we  resist 
the  remedy  of  a  national  bank?  It  is  painful,  Sir,  most  painful, 
to  allude  to  the  extraordinary  position  of  the  different  branches 
of  the  government;  but  it  is  necessary  to  allude  to  it.  This 
house  has  once  passed  a  bill  for  rechartering  the  present  bank. 
The  other  house  has  also  passed  it,  but  it  has  been  negatived  by 
the  President;  and  it  is  understood  that  strong  objections  exist 
,/ith  the  executive  to  any  bank  incorporated,  or  to  be  incorpo- 
rated, by  Congress. 

Sir,  I  think  the  country  calls,  and  has  a  right  to  call,  on  the 
executive  to  reconsider  these  objections,  if  they  do  exist.  Per- 
emptory objections  to  all  banks  created  by  Congress  have  not 


THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS.  547 

yet  been  formally  announced.  I  hope  they  will  not  be.  I  think 
the  country  demands  a  revision  of  any  opinions  which  may  hav« 
been  formed  on  this  matter,  and  requires,  in  its  own  name,  and 
for  the  sake  of  the  suffering  people,  that  one  man's  opinion, 
however  elevated,  may  not  oppose  the  general  judgment.  No 
man  in  this  country  should  say,  in  relation  to  a  subject  of  such 
immense  interest,  that  his  single  will  shall  be  the  law. 

It  does  not  become  any  man,  in  a  government  like  this,  to 
stand  proudly  on  his  own  opinion,  against  the  whole  country, 
I  shall  not  believe,  until  it  shall  be  so  proved,  that  the  executive 
will  so  stand.  He  has  himself  more  than  once  recommended 
the  subject  to  the  consideration  of  the  people,  as  a  subject  to  be 
discussed,  reasoned  on,  and  decided.  And  if  the  public  will, 
manifested  through  its  regular  organs,  the  houses  of  Congress, 
shall  demand  a  recharter  for  a  longer  or  a  shorter  time,  with 
modifications  to  remove  reasonable  and  even  plausible  objec- 
tions, I  am  not  prepared  to  believe  that  the  decision  of  the  two 
houses,  thus  acting  in  conformity  to  the  known  will  of  the 
people,  will  meet  a  flat  negative.  I  shall  not  credit  that,  till  I 
see  it.  I  certainly  shall  propose,  ere  long,  if  no  change  or  no 
other  acceptable  proposition  be  made,  to  make  the  trial.  As  J 
see  no  other  practical  mode  of  relief,  I  am  for  putting  this  to  the 
test.  The  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  approve  or  disapprove  the 
Secretary's  reasons.  Let  us  come  to  the  vote,  and  dispose  of 
those  reasons.  In  the  mean  time,  public  opinion  is  manifesting 
itself.  It  appears  to  me  to  grow  daily  stronger  and  stronger. 
The  moment  must  shortly  come  when  it  will  be  no  longer  doubt- 
ful whether  the  general  public  opinion  does  call  for  a  recharter 
of  the  bank.  When  that  moment  comes,  I  am  for  passing  the 
measure,  and  shall  propose  it.  I  believe  it  will  pass  this  house ; 
I  believe  it  cannot  be,  and  will  not  be,  defeated  in  the  other,  un- 
less relief  appears  in  some  other  form. 

Public  opinion  will  have  its  way  in  the  houses  of  legislation 
and  elsewhere.  The  people  are  sovereign ;  and  whatever  they 
determine  to  obtain  must  be  yielded  to  them.  This  is  my  be- 
lief, and  this  is  my  hope.  I  am  for  a  bank  as  a  measure  of  ex- 
pediency, and,  under  our  present  circumstances,  a  measure  of 
necessity.  I  yield  to  no  new-fangled  opinions,  to  no  fantastical 
experiments.  I  stand  by  the  tried  policy  of  the  country.  I  go 
for  the  safety  of  property,  for  the  protection  of  industry,  for  the 


548  THE   REMOVAL  OF  THE   DEPOSITS. 

security  of  the  currency.  And,  for  the  preservation  of  all  these 
great  ends,  I  am  for  a  bank ;  and,  as  the  measure  most  likely  to 
succeed,  I  am  for  continuing  this  bank,  with  modifications,  for  a 
longer  or  a  shorter  period.  This  is  the  measure  which  I  shall 
propose,  and  on  this  question  I  refer  myself,  without  hesitation, 
to  the  decision  of  the  country. 


At  a  subsequent  period  of  the  same  debate,  in  answer  to  observations 
of  Mr.  Forsyth,  Mr.  Webster  said  :  — 

The  gentleman  asks,  What  could  be  done  if  this  house 
should  pass  a  bill  renewing  the  bank  charter,  and  the  other 
house  should  reject  it?  Sir,  all  I  can  say  to  this  is,  that  the 
question  would  then  be  one  between  that  other  house  and  the 
people.  I  speak,  Sir,  of  that  honorable  house  with  the  same 
respect  as  of  this.  Neither  is  likely  to  be  found  acting,  for  a 
long  time,  on  such  a  question  as  this,  against  the  clear  and  well- 
ascertained  sense  of  the  country.  Depend  upon  it,  Sir,  depend 
upon  it,  this  "experiment"  cannot  succeed.  It  will  fail,  it  has 
failed,  it  is  a  complete  failure  already. 

Something,  then,  is  to  be  done,  and  what  is  it?  Congress 
cannot  adjourn,  leaving  the  country  in  its  present  condition. 
This  is  certain.  Each  house,  then,  as  I  think,  will  be  obliged 
to  propose  something,  or  to  concur  in  something.  Public  opin- 
ion will  require  it.  Negative  votes  settle  nothing.  If  either 
house  should  vote  against  a  bank  to-day,  nothing  would  be 
determined  by  it,  except  for  the  moment.  The  proposition 
would  be  renewed,  or  something  else  proposed.  The  great  erroi 
lies  in  imagining  that  the  country  will  be  quieted  and  settled,  if 
one  house,  or  even  both,  should  pass  votes  approving  the  conduct 
of  the  Secretary  in  removing  the  public  deposits.  This  is  a  grand 
mistake.  The  disturbing  and  exciting  causes  exist,  not  in  men's 
opinions,  but  in  men's  affairs.  It  is  not  a  question  of  theoretic 
right  or  wrong,  but  a  question  of  deep  suffering,  and  of  neces- 
sary relief.  No  votes,  no  decisions,  still  less  any  debates  in 
Congress,  will  restore  the  country  to  its  former  condition  with- 
out the  interposition  and  aid  of  some  positive  measure  of  relief. 
Such  a  measure  will  be  proposed;  it  will,  I  trust,  pass  this 


THE   REMOVAL   OF  THE   DEPOSITS.  549 

house.  Should  it  be  rejected  elsewhere,  the  consequences  will 
not  lie  at  our  door.  But  I  have  the  most  entire  belief,  that,  from 
absolute  necessity,  and  from  the  imperative  dictate  of  the  public 
will,  a  proper  measure  must  pass,  and  will  pass,  into  the  form 
of  law. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  like  others,  always  takes  it  for 
granted,  as  a  settled  point,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
have  decided  that  the  present  bank  shall  not  be  renewed.  I  be- 
lieve no  such  thing.  1  see  no  evidence  of  any  such  decisicn.  It 
is  easy  to  assume  all  this.  The  Secretary  assumed  it,  and  gen- 
tlemen follow  his  example,  and  assume  it  themselves.  Sir,  I 
think  the  lapse  of  a  few  months  will  correct  the  mistake,  both 
of  the  Secretary  and  of  the  gentlemen. 

The  honorable  member  has  suggested  another  idea,  calcu- 
lated, perhaps,  to  produce  a  momentary  impression,  which  has 
been  urged  in  other  quarters.  It  is,  that,  if  the  bank  charter 
be  renewed  now,  it  will  necessarily  become  perpetual.  Sir,  if 
the  gentleman  only  means  that,  if  we  now  admit  the  necessity 
or  utility  of  a  national  bank,  we  must  always,  for  similar  rea- 
sons, have  one  hereafter,  I  say  with  frankness,  that,  in  my  opin- 
ion, until  some  great  change  of  circumstances  shall  take  place, 
a  national  institution  of  that  kind  will  always  be  found  useful. 
But  if  he  desires  to  produce  a  belief  that  a  renewal  of  its  charter 
now  would  make  this  bank  perpetual,  under  its  present  form,  or 
under  any  form,  I  do  not  at  all  concur  in  his  opinion.  Sir,  no- 
body proposes  to  renew  the  bank,  except  for  a  limited  period. 
At  the  expiration  of  that  period,  it  will  be  in  the  power  of  Con- 
gress, just  as  fully  as  it  is  now,  to  continue  its  charter  still  further, 
or  to  amend  it,  or  let  it  altogether  expire.  And  what  harm  or 
danger  is  there  in  this  ?  The  charter  of  the  Bank  of  England, 
always  granted  for  limited  periods,  has  been  often  renewed,  with 
various  conditions  and  alterations,  and  has  now  existed,  I  think, 
under  these  rene»wals,  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  years.  Its 
last  term  of  years  was  about  expiring  recently,  and  the  Reform 
Parliament  have  seen  no  wiser  way  of  proceeding  than  to  incor- 
porate into  it  such  amendments  as  experience  had  shown  neces^ 
sary,  and  to  give  it  a  new  lease.  And  this,  as  it  appears  to  mr, 
is  precisely  the  course  which  the  interest  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  requires  in  regard  to  our  own  bank.  The  danger 
ol  perpetuity  is  wholly  unfounded,  and  all  alarm  on  that  score 


550  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  DEPOSITS. 

is  but  false  alarm.  The  bank,  if  renewed,  will  be  as  much  sub- 
ject to  the  will  and  pleasure  of  Congress  as  a  new  bank  with  a 
similar  charter,  and  will  possess  no  more  claim  than  a  new  one 
for  further  continuance  hereafter. 

The  honorable  gentleman  quotes  me,  Mr.  President,  as  having 
said,  on  a  former  occasion,  that,  if  Congress  shall  refuse  to  re 
charter  the  bank,  the  country  will  yet  live  through  the  difficult}. 
Why,  certainly,  Sir,  I  trust  it  will  live  through  it,  I  believe  the 
country  capable  of  self-government,  and  that  they  will  remedy 
not  only  such  evils  as  they  cannot  live  through,  but  other  evils 
also,  which  they  could  live  through,  and  which  they  would  bear, 
if  necessary,  but  which,  nevertheless,  being  great  evils,  and 
wholly  unnecessary,  they  are  not  disposed  to  endure.  Is  the 
gentleman  entirely  satisfied,  if  he  can  only  persuade  himself 
that  the  country  can  live  under  the  evils  inflicted  on  it  by  these 
measures  of  the  executive  government?  Sir,  I  doubt  not  the 
people  will  live  through  their  difficulties;  and  one  way  of  living 
through  them  is  to  put  a  speedy  close  to  them.  The  people 
have  only  to  will  it,  and  all  their  present  sufferings  are  at  an 
end.  These  sufferings  flow  from  no  natural  cause.  They  come 
not  from  famine  or  pestilence,  nor  from  invasion  or  war,  nor 
from  any  external  public  calamity.  They  spring  directly  and 
exclusively  from  the  unwise  and  unjustifiable  interference  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  with  the  public  moneys.  By  this 
single  act,  he  has  disordered  the  revenue,  deranged  the  currency, 
broken  up  commercial  confidence,  created  already  a  thousand 
bankruptcies,  and  brought  the  whole  business  of  the  country 
into  a  state  of  confusion  and  dismay.  This  is  a  political  evil, 
and  a  political  evil  only.  It  arises  from  mismanagement  entirely 
and  exclusively.  This  mismanagement,  this  sole  cause  of  the 
whole  distress,  the  people  can  correct.  They  have  but  to  speak 
the  word,  and  it  is  done.  They  have  but  to  say  so,  and  the 
public  treasure  will  return  to  its  proper  place,,  and  the  public 
prosperity  resume  its  accustomed  course. 

They  have  but  to  utter  this  supreme  command,  these  words 
of  high  behest;  they  have  but  to  give  to  the  public  voice  that 
imperative  unity  which  all  must  hear,  and  all  must  obey ;  and 
the  reign  of  misrule  and  the  prevalence  of  disaster  will  expire 
together.  Public  sufferings  will  then  be  removed  by  removing 
their  cause.  Political  mischiefs  will  be  repaired  by  political  re- 


THE   REMOVAL  OF   THE   DEPOSITS.  551 

dress.  That  which  has  been  unwisely  done  will  be  wisely  un- 
done; and  this  is  the  way,  Sir,  in  which  an  enlightened  and  in- 
dependent people  live  through  their  difficulties.  And,  Sir,  I  look 
to  no  other  source  for  relief;  but  I  look  confidently  to  this.  I 
dare  not,  indeed,  under  present  appearances,  predict  an  immedi- 
ate termination  of  present  trouble ;  that  would  be  rash.  It  may 
take  time  for  the  people  to  understand  one  another  in  different 
parts  of  the  country,  and  to  unite  in  their  objects  and  in  their 
means.  Circumstances  may  delay  this  union  of  purpose  and 
union  of  effort.  I  know  there  are  powerful  causes,  now  in  full 
activity,  which  may  not  only  prolong,  but  increase,  the  commo- 
tion of  the  political  elements.  I  see  indications  that  a  storm  is 
on  the  wing.  I  am  not  ignorant  of  the  probable  approach  of  a 
crisis  in  which  contending  parties,  and  contending  passions,  are 
to  be  intensely  excited ;  in  which  the  great  interests  of  the  coun- 
try are  all  to  be  deeply  convulsed ;  and  which,  in  its  consequen- 
ces, may  even  touch  the  action  of  the  government  itself.  In 
preparing  to  meet  such  a  crisis,  should  it  come,  I  found  myself 
on  those  great  truths  which  our  own  experience  and  the  experi- 
ence of  all  other  nations  have  established.  I  yield  to  no  new- 
fangled theories,  to  no  wild  and  rash  experiments.  I  stand,  too, 
upon  those  high  duties  which  the  Constitution  of  the  country 
has  devolved  upon  us ;  and  thus  holding  on,  and  holding  fast, 
by  acknowledged  truth  and  manifest  duty,  I  shall  take  events  as 
they  come ;  and  although  these  black  and  portentous  clouds 
may  break  on  our  heads,  and  the  tempest  overpower  us  for  a 
while,  still  that  can  never  be  for  ever  overwhelmed,  that  can  never 
go  finally  to  the  bottom,  which  truth  and  duty  bear  up. 


END    OF    VOLUME    THIRD. 


€258 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


A     000  228  540     1 


RLE A£|:  DO   NOT    REMOVE 
THIS   BOOK  CARDS 


^•LIBRARY 


University  Research  Library 


SO 


CO 
Oi 

a-. 


